|
Post by Ailedhoo on Jun 1, 2012 11:24:47 GMT -8
The Diamond Jubilee is occurring in Britain, where the nation is being roused to celebrate the long rule of our head of state... who gained that position via parentage as oppose to being chosen via election or earning an appointment. Naturally in these calibrations rises a thread that asks: should nations keep their monarchies? Using Britain as a prime example, should we elect our head of state? Should countries like Canada maintain the British monarch as their head of state? Will an elected head of state be healthy? What will be the social benefits and costs if Britain for example went a republic? How will the economics sway? Will the calibrations occurring at the moment be matched? Or are these calibrations a bit too much? Would you base your head of state on American, French, German or other models of alternatives to monarchs as head of state settings? Should the head of state be elected? How big should the palace be? Should monarchy be elective of who gets to be the heir? Should we have a monarch, elected president or a president for life? Will Ailedhoo cease typing questions into one big box? People of IOT: I ask you for your view on the matter!
|
|
|
Post by christos200 on Jun 2, 2012 2:06:46 GMT -8
Monarchy should be abolished. Only someone who is elected by the people can represent and rule the people of a nation.
I cant understand why the UK keeps a medieval Monarchy?
If you say that it is because of the Union, i am pretty sure that the UK could work as a Federal Democracy, German or USA style.
|
|
|
Post by hoplitejoe on Jun 5, 2012 4:10:39 GMT -8
The thing is that Germany, in my head, has it worse with a president. This is also a person who has no powers and is just a figure head, just without any interesting history or tradition (and more importantly any tourist income). Most Americans find the idea of having a queen Abhorrent, I feel like this is a cultural thing (there are definitely brits who feel the same way though). Whereas we have a class system which we obsess over, Americans stress the fact that "anyone can become anything" and so the fact that our queen is hereditary goes against everything they hold dear. To make this clear, I am not a monarchist, I just see no reason to get rid of her.
|
|
|
Post by King Sonic on Jun 5, 2012 4:46:11 GMT -8
The role of a monarch is a genetic connection to one's past. Their apolitical nature combined with this allows a very good head of state. (However, the idea that a Presidential system can't serve the same function is fallacious; Americans, for example, ALWAYS rally behind the President in times of crisis or national confrontation)
However, despite all the hype over heritage and such, there is a tangible benefit to the monarchy - the state gets far more in taxes than it hands out to the Crown due to the accord between them(it was something like Parliament gets to collect taxes on royal land in exchange for the allowance).
Furthermore, it is a HUGE tourist attraction. As an example, we Americans - and we are the wealthiest nation on Earth and there's 300 million of us - seem to enjoy the novelty of a monarchy, lacking one of our own, so you can only imagine how much tourism we alone provide.
|
|
|
Post by christos200 on Jun 5, 2012 5:42:17 GMT -8
In Greece we hate Monarchy, because our Kings either support a dictatorship ( that is puppet of the Americans) or they lose a war that destroys 3,000 years of Greek presence in Minor Asia ( Minor Asia War), or they leave Athens for Egypt and betray the Greek people who want to resist the invaders (WWII). Not to say that because a Greek King was killed by a monkey, Great Greece was destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by King Sonic on Jun 5, 2012 10:03:49 GMT -8
Often leaders cave in because they think their nation will be better off than if it was conquered. As I recall, the President of Austria wasn't exactly eager to bow to Hitler, but when it became apparent Hitler might use force of arms to take Austria over, he handed the country over to spare it a war it could not hope to win.
Bravery and stupidity are often confused. If you have no chance of winning, it makes sense to cave in and retreat underground. It makes no sense, other than macho insanity, to stand up. You don't win a war dying for your country; you win it by making the other bastard die for his.
Also, it's funny you mention Great Greece yet condemn surrendering. As I recall, Alexander was quite fond of butchering those who put up a resistance, yet was quite generous to those who surrendered. (This tactic has been used by empire after empire, with great success, for obvious reasons)
|
|
JoanK
Respected Citizen
BOOM. Headshot
Posts: 85
|
Post by JoanK on Jun 7, 2012 6:30:26 GMT -8
I am not voting until Ailedhoo learns to spell the language he thinks he's writing in.
|
|
|
Post by King Sonic on Jun 7, 2012 8:43:08 GMT -8
JK is Spanish so, it's safe to assume he's pro-monarchy. Why do I say this? Because the Spanish King is a freaking hero. He's a real-life Severus Snape, having worked very closely with an evil dictator and then when he gained his trust by being his anointed successor, surprised the world by embracing democracy. Then when the military tried to overthrow it, he yet again rallied the people to support the democracy. Juan Carlos is probably the one monarch most deserving of his crown. He may have been born into it, but he still earned it, doing what a true head of state is supposed to do - he's stood up for his people TWICE. And that's just what I know of. Contrast to the British monarchy, whose only real claim to legitimacy apart from tradition is that they're a net profit for the UK. Whereas we have a class system which we obsess over, Americans stress the fact that "anyone can become anything" and so the fact that our queen is hereditary goes against everything they hold dear. To make this clear, I am not a monarchist, I just see no reason to get rid of her. There's still a mystique over the royal family, and we still hold them in high regard. I can't help but think sometimes we want one, though we'd probably get bored of her real quick. As for us being against things being hereditary - we've created a quasi-nobility. It's called the low dividend/capital gains/inheritance taxes. While this is justified as "rewarding success," it in effect has made it so there are aristocrats who pay virtually zero taxes due to their massive portfolios inherited from generations past. The only real difference between them and a feudal lord is that they lack a title and that the serfs have a few more rights now.
|
|