United Kingdom or United Republic

Smidgey · 22-10-2007, 10:55 AM

[quote=ModernUKIP;434393]You'd rather die for someone like Tony Blair?[quote]

1) I wouldn't join the military.
2) If there was a draft I would sooner go to prison as an objector.
3) I made clear in my last posting that if one fights for anything, it should be liberty and freedom. Tony Blair is neither of these.

Quote:

I'm a Monarchist through and through. God Save The Queen.

I am Republican through and through. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. (We all have our own wee sayings.

)

Quote:

Oh, and for the record, Codified Constitutions don't stop dictators either. However, the Crown may, as at least the Crown is a figure opposition to a dictator can rally around, and carries some authority.

I never claimed they did...

The ideals of liberty, republicanism and the separation of powers can do that just as well.

Quote:

Very nice quote there, I have heard it man many times expecially by my pompus American friend to expalin "THAT EVERYBODY IS AN AMERICAN WHO BELIEVES IN FREEDOM" which I see as a very dull approach to ones pride a service to country.

Indeed, America has strayed far away from what the founding fathers taught. Jefferson would be turning in his grave. I suppose the same is true of Britain. Mill, Locke, Hume and Smith would be aghast at the current state of Britain and how our freedoms have been trampled on ever since the rise of the Labour party over 80 years ago.

Quote:

I am glad your grandfather fought for mine and your freedom as did my gradfather. Its true you dont have to be a Monarchist to fight for your country in liberty we find the willingness to fight. However I was talking more about the Veterans we have today; do you really think they would have connected better with a corrupt, adultering, power-lusful money-grabbing politician or rather the 81 year old woman who has pusher and forcer her life and soul into the job which killed her father and which keeps Britain unique in the world of many many failed or failing Republics.....BRITAIN HAS NEVER FAILED FROM WITHIN ITSELF AND NEVER WILL (unless people like you take the populace), I will be willing to defend freedom and fight for a woman who has inspired me so much to put my duty first and my slef second; no matter how hard the task in hand. Did Bill Clinton among other world presidents do that NO, what do they do? they give up.

I'm sorry if this is insulting, but this paragraph comes across as if you are espousing communitarian or collectivist values. I have no disrespect for the queen - only her office. By placing your argument against my republicanism in a person you are really hitting a straw man. Furthermore, if the queen had the power of Bill Clinton we could see ourselves with a case of George III or George IV, not the case of our current day. Furthermore, monarchies have failed in the past as well, so to single out only republics in this case is rather disingenuous.

Quote:

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!

The queen is but a woman and God does not exist.

Quote:

Smidgy do you really want a head of state who represents on side of the political spectrum, a person who will reprisent our nation and country to be bias on one topic and agree with certsain thing and not with other and be open about it. The Queen is Politically neutral by Constitution therefore she reprisents everyone and not just Tories (although she is seen to be Conservative being a Monarch and all) or just Socialists or just Communists, she reprisents everybody be cayse she was not voted in by a massive wake of nutters. Smidgey, the majority of the British populace are socialist!

Well, this entire paragraph has expanded upon ModernUKIP's straw man of my position, nevertheless I will answer it.

Again, this comes across as communitarian and collectivist. I am an individual, I care very little what the executive or the legislature are doing, so long as they are brought down to size and the scope of government is drastically reduced. Your paragraphs are coming across as some sort of collectivist dichotomy: either monarchy or state. I choose neither. You are assuming that because I am a republican I must automatically love the state? You are completely mistaken. I am a republican and I am a libertarian. The state is force and violence, and to assume that I would somehow show allegiance to the state over a monarch is folly.

Quote:

Smidgey, the majority of the British populace are socialist! And if we had a democratically elected head of state (which would be a waste of time since we might as well have someone who was born to do it) then the socialists would vote for the most socialist candidate

And if the queen supports the NHS or the public school system, then so is she. There is a good quote by Hayek which displays this topic perfectly:

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and making them equal."

As to your bracketed phrase, do you believe in divine right?

Quote:

therefore the person who will reprisent our nation at every world cup, Christmas Broadcast, ribbon cutting and opening of Parliament will be only reprisenting the socialist popultion. Do you finally see what I mean now?

Yes I do, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

noachian · 22-10-2007, 12:48 PM

[quote=Smidgey;434512][quote=ModernUKIP;434393]You'd rather die for someone like Tony Blair?

Quote:

1) I wouldn't join the military.
2) If there was a draft I would sooner go to prison as an objector.
3) I made clear in my last posting that if one fights for anything, it should be liberty and freedom. Tony Blair is neither of these.

I am Republican through and through. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. (We all have our own wee sayings.

)

I never claimed they did...

The ideals of liberty, republicanism and the separation of powers can do that just as well.

Indeed, America has strayed far away from what the founding fathers taught. Jefferson would be turning in his grave. I suppose the same is true of Britain. Mill, Locke, Hume and Smith would be aghast at the current state of Britain and how our freedoms have been trampled on ever since the rise of the Labour party over 80 years ago.

I'm sorry if this is insulting, but this paragraph comes across as if you are espousing communitarian or collectivist values. I have no disrespect for the queen - only her office. By placing your argument against my republicanism in a person you are really hitting a straw man. Furthermore, if the queen had the power of Bill Clinton we could see ourselves with a case of George III or George IV, not the case of our current day. Furthermore, monarchies have failed in the past as well, so to single out only republics in this case is rather disingenuous.

The queen is but a woman and God does not exist.

Well, this entire paragraph has expanded upon ModernUKIP's straw man of my position, nevertheless I will answer it.

Again, this comes across as communitarian and collectivist. I am an individual, I care very little what the executive or the legislature are doing, so long as they are brought down to size and the scope of government is drastically reduced. Your paragraphs are coming across as some sort of collectivist dichotomy: either monarchy or state. I choose neither. You are assuming that because I am a republican I must automatically love the state? You are completely mistaken. I am a republican and I am a libertarian. The state is force and violence, and to assume that I would somehow show allegiance to the state over a monarch is folly.

And if the queen supports the NHS or the public school system, then so is she. There is a good quote by Hayek which displays this topic perfectly:

"There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and making them equal."

As to your bracketed phrase, do you believe in divine right?

Yes I do, but that doesn't mean I agree with it.

I see you have said my views on the Monarchy come across as 'collectivist';
well thats only because whatever happens to the whole effects me. I am an individual but I still strongly care about what goes on in society so much that I will be willing to make a point about it.

The Queen obviously does agree with the NHS and the Public School System but we cant say she does because she is politically neutral, the Queen maybe is a socialist but that doesnt mean she is open and political about it. And if you've read animal farm by George Orwell then you'll to realise "SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" (so to speak). Socialism claims to make people equal but if eveybody is equal then where is the sense of achievment, where is the sense of wanting to do better than the pauper in the street. My Grandfather was a very wealthy man, he worked so hard sruggling for his family to give my mother and aunts a good education and you know what, the socialists took everything from him and gave it to some broken down feckless young dole-man who couldn't be bothered to work for a living. Every pound my Gradfather made 60p went to the poor and the feckless. some aspects of Socialism are good, for instance giving those who need it a better life, but when it comes to taking my money and giving it to those down-and-out unemployed bumbes thats when I become angry. I am glad I have a person to look to to reprisent my nation as Head of State who isn't one side or the other (openly of course). And I do/don't believe in Divine Right or Divine Opointment, what I ment by "who is born to do it" is that the Monarch is brought up since birth to do this job, so that not when they are about 21 stop and think "I want to reprisent the Black people of this country by being Democratically elected by them" no the Queen was brought up ALL HER LIFE to believe that she must reprisent her whole nation by not being voted in by one side of them.

It is quite obvious that I have turned against socialism, since this good-for-nothing socialist government has ruined our country. I agree with you about our previous Ministers would be turning in their graves.

P.S. "God doesn't exist" isn't a valid argument against the Monarchy.

Smidgey · 22-10-2007, 01:03 PM

[quote=noachian;434565][quote=Smidgey;434512]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernUKIP

You'd rather die for someone like Tony Blair?

I see you have said my views on the Monarchy come across as 'collectivist';
well thats only because whatever happens to the whole effects me. I am an individual but I still strongly care about what goes on in society so much that I will be willing to make a point about it.

There is a succinct difference between talking about society and talking about the politics of that society. You were talking about politics and political systems, not the society itself. I merely claimed that your political thinking was collectivist.

Quote:

The Queen obviously does agree with the NHS and the Public School System but we cant say she does because she is politically neutral, the Queen maybe is a socialist but that doesnt mean she is open and political about it. And if you've read animal farm by George Orwell then you'll to realise "SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" (so to speak). Socialism claims to make people equal but if eveybody is equal then where is the sense of achievment, where is the sense of wanting to do better than the pauper in the street. My Grandfather was a very wealthy man, he worked so hard sruggling for his family to give my mother and aunts a good education and you know what, the socialists took everything from him and gave it to some broken down feckless young dole-man who couldn't be bothered to work for a living. Every pound my Gradfather made 60p went to the poor and the feckless. some aspects of Socialism are good, for instance giving those who need it a better life, but when it comes to taking my money and giving it to those down-and-out unemployed bumbes thats when I become angry. I am glad I have a person to look to to reprisent my nation as Head of State who isn't one side or the other (openly of course). And I do/don't believe in Divine Right or Divine Opointment, what I ment by "who is born to do it" is that the Monarch is brought up since birth to do this job, so that not when they are about 21 stop and think "I want to reprisent the Black people of this country by being Democratically elected by them" no the Queen was brought up ALL HER LIFE to believe that she must reprisent her whole nation by not being voted in by one side of them.

I despise socialism as well, but you are picking and choosing. You like some socialism and dislike others. You then decide to re-define the socialism you like in order to make yourself not appear as one. The fact is, distributive justice is socialism, whether it comes in the form of unemployment benefit or the NHS.

The thing is, I have already said, the queen does not represent me. If she did, then she would not represent a vast amount of the people of this nation. It is naive to think that I am in any way represented by one woman. In fact, it is impossible for there to be a queen and to have her represent me at the same time, since I believe in republicanism.

Quote:

It is quite obvious that I have turned against socialism, since this good-for-nothing socialist government has ruined our country. I agree with you about our previous Ministers would be turning in their graves.

You have only turned away from what you define as socialism. Whereas if you look deep into your ideology you will realise that you believe in many different types of distributive justice, which is definitely a socialistic principle.

They were all philosophers, not ministers. Those four men are, in my opinion, the greatest thing that has ever happened to this nation and we must heed their advice in our time of need.

Quote:

P.S. "God doesn't exist" isn't a valid argument against the Monarchy.

I never claimed it was.

kernow · 22-10-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernUKIP

I'm a Monarchist through and through. God Save The Queen.

Oh, and for the record, Codified Constitutions don't stop dictators either. However, the Crown may, as at least the Crown is a figure opposition to a dictator can rally around, and carries some authority.

I toast her Majesty! Hip, Hooray!

22ANDUK · 22-10-2007, 01:55 PM

Furthermore, the Monarchy reserves the thought that the 'Head of State' is essentially that, the head of an entire country. As such it should be above petty party politics. Yes, since the Queen is not elected the allegation that she does 'represent' anyone is quite naive, as an elected President could be there on 35% of the vote, so would probably go further in isolating even more people. The Queen does not have to panic every five years, prancing and posing for impending elections, and can quite happily carry on the being the Head of State.

The British Monarchy has recently been through one of its toughest tests in over a century, after the wake of Diana's death in 1997 saw public opinion of the Monarchy drop to its lowest ebb since the murmurings of revolution in the 1920s (Bolshevikism, the General Strike, first Labour Government etc). However the Monarchy prevailed - Prince Charles and Camilla are married, the Queen has celebrated 50 years of service and the two Princes are seen as popular and affable members capable of leading Britain through the 21st Century.

The Monarchy won't be going anywhere for the time being.

Smidgey · 22-10-2007, 02:08 PM

To claim that they lead Britain is also rather naive. If they did, then it would be their fault for out involvement the EU.

But of course, they don't.

rjt · 22-10-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kernow

I toast her Majesty! Hip, Hooray!

I support the Monarchy I am proud of our heritage its one of the things that puts the great in Britian.

HMq has devoted her life to this countrys service and for all the riddicule I think HRH The Prince of Wales will make a fine King because like his mother he actually cares about what people think.

I hope the republicans never get there way.

noachian · 22-10-2007, 02:23 PM

[quote=Smidgey;434568][quote=noachian;434565]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgey

There is a succinct difference between talking about society and talking about the politics of that society. You were talking about politics and political systems, not the society itself. I merely claimed that your political thinking was collectivist.

I despise socialism as well, but you are picking and choosing. You like some socialism and dislike others. You then decide to re-define the socialism you like in order to make yourself not appear as one. The fact is, distributive justice is socialism, whether it comes in the form of unemployment benefit or the NHS.

The thing is, I have already said, the queen does not represent me. If she did, then she would not represent a vast amount of the people of this nation. It is naive to think that I am in any way represented by one woman. In fact, it is impossible for there to be a queen and to have her represent me at the same time, since I believe in republicanism.

You have only turned away from what you define as socialism. Whereas if you look deep into your ideology you will realise that you believe in many different types of distributive justice, which is definitely a socialistic principle.

They were all philosophers, not ministers. Those four men are, in my opinion, the greatest thing that has ever happened to this nation and we must heed their advice in our time of need.

I never claimed it was.

I knew they were philosophers but I was meaning to put Ministers aswell sorry it looked as if I had claimed they were Ministers.

noachian · 22-10-2007, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjt

I support the Monarchy I am proud of our heritage its one of the things that puts the great in Britian.

HMq has devoted her life to this countrys service and for all the riddicule I think HRH The Prince of Wales will make a fine King because like his mother he actually cares about what people think.

I hope the republicans never get there way.

Indeed. A TOAST TO HER MAJESTY. All in favour quote this.

Westcountryman · 22-10-2007, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noachian

Indeed. A TOAST TO HER MAJESTY. All in favour quote this.

Hear Hear!

View Poll Results: United Kingdom or United Republic?
The British Monarchy/Kingdom	26	78.79%
REPUBLIC! Abolish the Monarchy	4	12.12%
Not really bothered	3	9.09%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

22-10-2007, 02:08 PM	#16 (permalink)
Smidgey Uber Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Edinburgh Posts: 2,101 Party: Libertarian Party	To claim that they lead Britain is also rather naive. If they did, then it would be their fault for out involvement the EU. But of course, they don't. __________________ How vain is man, who boasts in fight the valour of gigantic might! -Georg Friedrich Händel

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/talk-about-anything/43457-united-kingdom-united-republic.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
British Democracy Forum (& UKIP)	This thread	Refback	23-10-2007 09:05 PM

22-10-2007, 01:55 PM	#15 (permalink)
22ANDUK Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,438	Furthermore, the Monarchy reserves the thought that the 'Head of State' is essentially that, the head of an entire country. As such it should be above petty party politics. Yes, since the Queen is not elected the allegation that she does 'represent' anyone is quite naive, as an elected President could be there on 35% of the vote, so would probably go further in isolating even more people. The Queen does not have to panic every five years, prancing and posing for impending elections, and can quite happily carry on the being the Head of State. The British Monarchy has recently been through one of its toughest tests in over a century, after the wake of Diana's death in 1997 saw public opinion of the Monarchy drop to its lowest ebb since the murmurings of revolution in the 1920s (Bolshevikism, the General Strike, first Labour Government etc). However the Monarchy prevailed - Prince Charles and Camilla are married, the Queen has celebrated 50 years of service and the two Princes are seen as popular and affable members capable of leading Britain through the 21st Century. The Monarchy won't be going anywhere for the time being.