Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-07-2014, 09:21 PM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 07:54 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-07-2014 07:27 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  It isn't a strawman, I'm asking you if you would be okay with that. Stop abusing fallacies.

You're asking a disingenuous question that has nothing to do with what anyone else said or espoused.

(30-07-2014 07:27 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  And yes, I can demonstrate that the divine right of kings is still a relevant doctrine today. By the Grace of God is still used by the Queen of Britain, which is a statement of divine right.

BZZT. Fail. Must try harder. That is not what "by grace of God" means. It does not refer, in any way, to the rights and privileges of the sovereign, but to the provenance of the person who embodies the Crown. Your feels do not take precedence over legal theory. The idea of divine right of British monarchs was abandoned in the Glorious Revolution. That was in 1688, and was made clear in the 1689 Bill of Rights. So there's that.

The monarch's role as governor of the Church of England is every bit the nominal and ceremonial as the monarch's role as head of state, and that is a role which applies only in one part of one realm.

You have provided no constitutional citations. A constitution is the legal basis for justifying a state apparatus. I really hope I don't need to explain this to you in detail. I will skip to the relevant section of our mutual constitution, that of Canada - that is, section III.9:
Quote:The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Can you read that? Continue and be vested in. Not proceed from. The Crown exists by popular affirmation - its role is declared by the constitution on behalf of the people. They are the arbiters of sovereignty.

Do you wish to revise your statement?

It is right there in the title. You can dance around it all you want, it is still there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 07:30 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2014 07:35 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(30-07-2014 09:21 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  It is right there in the title. You can dance around it all you want, it is still there.

Oh. So I guess you are privileging your personal feels over actual legal theory. Either that, or you can't actually read. Since I just explained to you what that phrasing actually means and why it persists. And why it doesn't mean what your ignorant, naive little ass thinks it does.

I mean, I went to the trouble of showing you the actual constitutional passage. You know, the highest legal authority in our country? The document defining the structure and basis for our government? And I guess it's an option to just right out ignore what it says and substitute your own feels. Who cares if the actual constitutional and legal theory disagree with you? What does reality matter? A guy like you has feels. And feels are not subservient to mere reality. Who needs truth when you've got a heaping helping of truthiness?

So yes, hopeless, stubborn ignorance is also an option for you. Knock yourself out! I'm sure a whinging defiance of actual facts will convince people in no time.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
01-08-2014, 07:03 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(29-07-2014 04:03 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Monarchies derive their moral legitimacy from the divine right of kings. It is impossible to prove that there is a god, let alone one who appoints kings. So from the very onset you cannot prove a monarchist government has any sort of moral legitimacy.

In a republic the government derives its moral legitimacy from popular sovereignty (the government existing and ruling by consent of the people). Popular sovereignty is proven every time a proper election is held. A republican government has provable moral sovereignty, and thus citizens have a moral obligation to follow its laws. No such obligation exists in a monarchy unless one believes in the divine right of kings.
I haven't signed shit. I haven't voted for anybody up there. Other people's meaningless cultural rituals have no moral obligation for me. They might as well elect a democratic Nerd Minister of Gondor at Comic Con, or the Pope in Rome. Damn popular sovereignity, there is no such thing provable empirically or rationally. It's pure make-believe, exactly like the divine right of kings. No difference at all.

Voting does nothing. If I have a bucket of shit and get a billion people to vote at 93 % consensus that it's a bucket of gold, will that change anything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 08:21 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(01-08-2014 07:03 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Damn popular sovereignity, there is no such thing provable empirically or rationally.

How, then, do you propose groups of people make equitable decisions?

I guess we'd better just hand the reins to our Magical Supermen™ like you, right?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 08:31 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(01-08-2014 07:03 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Voting does nothing.

Does that mean you won't vote? I hope so, because people with your simplistic, one-solution views are nothing short of dangerous for the advancement and prosperity of humanity.

Luckily we don't have 93 % consensus for the buckets of shit you are currently advocating in this thread: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...to-atheism

Quote:I haven't signed shit. I haven't voted for anybody up there. Other people's meaningless cultural rituals have no moral obligation for me.

Yeah... Any cultural rituals in particular or just all of them?
If the latter is the case you can easily solve this by going to live alone in the Arctic or a desert - or any other place with few to no people - where you don't have to follow those pesky cultural rituals of greeting people and shaking their hands, giving something in return for favours and stuff you want, signing something and then being obliged to follow it Dodgy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gaest's post
01-08-2014, 08:33 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(01-08-2014 08:21 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(01-08-2014 07:03 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Damn popular sovereignity, there is no such thing provable empirically or rationally.

How, then, do you propose groups of people make equitable decisions?

I guess we'd better just hand the reins to our Magical Supermen™ like you, right?
We reason logically from the first principles,
or we submit to scientific evidence,
or we negotiate until we arrive at a win-win deal that is better than whatever we would come up with individually,
or we find someone else who is willing to do business with us,
or failing that, we give up and go doing something else. We don't push the issue and don't force anybody against their will.

Free market is better than politics, because nobody on the market is forced to go along with majority decision. You can get what you want even if you're less than 1 %, you simply buy the goods. But in politics, a party gets whopping 49 % and it's doomed anyway. I think that is a bad system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
I thought you were ignoring me?
Rolleyes

(01-08-2014 08:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We reason logically from the first principles...

"First principles" is not an argument.

(01-08-2014 08:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  or we submit to scientific evidence...

Unless it contradicts your own special woo woo, because conspiracy.
(rather selective, this "submission"...)

(01-08-2014 08:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  or we negotiate until we arrive at a win-win deal that is better than whatever we would come up with individually,
or we find someone else who is willing to do business with us...

Both of which are quite subjective and situational; in most situations it is literally impossible to fully satisfy all parties. Or is this another problem that you're going solve by Magical Thinking™?

(01-08-2014 08:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  or failing that, we give up and go doing something else.

And your basis for the assumption that that's always valid or feasible? Nevermind, I'll answer for you: Magical Thinking™.

(01-08-2014 08:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  We don't push the issue and don't force anybody against their will.

I know you're crazy, but that's no excuse for speaking in plural pronouns.

All property is implicit coercion, by the way.

(01-08-2014 08:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Free market is better than politics, because nobody on the market is forced to go along with majority decision.

What the actual fuck?

Two gigantic flaws in that facile shibboleth. Markets are composed of human beings, from whom politics is inseperable, and even ignoring the two elephants in the room of monopolies and cartels, a disparity of capital engenders a massively unequal relationship.

(01-08-2014 08:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You can get what you want even if you're less than 1 %, you simply buy the goods.

What an ignorant, presumptuous thing to say. What if you can't afford to? What if supplies are finite? What if someone won't sell to you?

I mean, I realize that your entire worldview is based on dogshit psychobabble justification or a Magical Thinking utopia, but would it kill you to examine your presuppositions for once?

(01-08-2014 08:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But in politics, a party gets whopping 49 % and it's doomed anyway. I think that is a bad system.

Citation needed.

It may interest you to know - and I find it hard to credit that you were previously unaware - but there are, right now, literally thousands of different political systems in practise across this world of ours. This "bad system" appears to be one that exists only in your head.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
01-08-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(01-08-2014 07:03 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(29-07-2014 04:03 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Monarchies derive their moral legitimacy from the divine right of kings. It is impossible to prove that there is a god, let alone one who appoints kings. So from the very onset you cannot prove a monarchist government has any sort of moral legitimacy.

In a republic the government derives its moral legitimacy from popular sovereignty (the government existing and ruling by consent of the people). Popular sovereignty is proven every time a proper election is held. A republican government has provable moral sovereignty, and thus citizens have a moral obligation to follow its laws. No such obligation exists in a monarchy unless one believes in the divine right of kings.
I haven't signed shit. I haven't voted for anybody up there. Other people's meaningless cultural rituals have no moral obligation for me. They might as well elect a democratic Nerd Minister of Gondor at Comic Con, or the Pope in Rome. Damn popular sovereignity, there is no such thing provable empirically or rationally. It's pure make-believe, exactly like the divine right of kings. No difference at all.

Voting does nothing. If I have a bucket of shit and get a billion people to vote at 93 % consensus that it's a bucket of gold, will that change anything?

You do have a point that pure democracy is not a good system, because it becomes mod rule, but without the ability to appoint and remove our leaders, what is to prevent tyranny? The best system balances democracy with constitutional protection of unpopular opinions, like what America has.

How do you propose leaders be kept in check if the people have no mechanism with which to remove them? In your lazise-faire utopia why wouldn't some billionaire hire a private army and install himself as dictator? What mechanisms are in place to prevent that?

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Res Publica's post
01-08-2014, 09:13 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2014 09:19 AM by Gaest.)
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
(01-08-2014 08:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Free market is better than politics, because nobody on the market is forced to go along with majority decision. You can get what you want even if you're less than 1 %, you simply buy the goods. But in politics, a party gets whopping 49 % and it's doomed anyway. I think that is a bad system.

And this is exactly where you get too simplistic.

First of all, with the tendency towards concentration of wealth - which seems to be a pretty inherent thing in developed human societies and especially in capitalism: How do you propose that we level the playingfield when getting rid of state and government (if that is even possible)? And how do you keep it plain enough that every minority (evey 1 %) instead of just one minority is wealthy enough to able to buy the goods that you want?

Secondly, a party getting 49 % (provided there are only two) is still able to use it's influence, since we are not living in a simplistic black and white situation, but living in one where there are compromises, individuals or groups of representatives who doesn't always vote along the party line and so on... Please try to nuance your view of the world a bit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gaest's post
01-08-2014, 09:14 AM
RE: Why Monarchies have No Moral Legitimacy
Quote:They might as well elect a democratic Nerd Minister of Gondor at Comic Con

That doesn't make sense. Gondor is a Kingdom, not a government department...

Quote:or the Pope in Rome.

The Pope doesn't live in Rome, he lives in the Vatican City.

Quote:We don't push the issue and don't force anybody against their will.

Seems like you're pushing the issue and forcing your shit on me at the moment.
Hypocrite.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: