[JacobW]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
I don't care about tourism. It just isn't right that a group of people are forcibly subsidised by anyone else.

Ah. So the Labour Party is now in favour of the total abolition of the welfare state. A bit Blairite, don't you think? Was it Mandleson's idea?

[Mechie]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
So you're willing to risk damaging our economy and therefore push up taxes further for the sake of appearing to promote equality? Well, got to hand it you, you can tell you're from Labour...

Yep, you've got it in one. I think that the damage to our economy if the monarchy is abolished to be overrated.

It is fundamentally an issue on equality. Why should I have to fund someone to live in a lavish lifestyle? Why should everyone be forced to give money to them? How is it ever fair that someone should be forcibly funded by everyone to live a lavish lifestyle?

[Mechie]

(Original post by JacobW)
Ah. So the Labour Party is now in favour of the total abolition of the welfare state. A bit Blairite, don't you think? Was it Mandleson's idea?

Somehow I think giving people enough money so they can actually live is a little different to subsidising a lavish, fancy lifestyle.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Yep, you've got it in one. I think that the damage to our economy if the monarchy is abolished to be overrated.

It is fundamentally an issue on equality. Why should I have to fund someone to live in a lavish lifestyle? Why should everyone be forced to give money to them? How is it ever fair that someone should be forcibly funded by everyone to live a lavish lifestyle?

Then you bring in to question the whole benefits system as well. Why should we fund the life of others in any form? They're not our responsibility...

[Birchington]

(Original post by JacobW)
The current method of choosing a monarch has been adapted to the monarch's role through centuries of organic development.

You are right to mention 'organic development' as a reason for scrapping the monarchy. Why should the only criteria for the eligibility of our head of state be their birthright? I would like to see every Briton have the chance to aspire to one day be head of state instead of the current inferior, undemocratic arrangement where you have to be born to a particular family and only that determines your position.

Why should every British man, woman and child be denied the dream of one day being able to be given the honour of serving as head of state? I dispute the anachronistic justifications that monarchists give for supporting the monarchy's retention.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
So you're willing to risk damaging our economy and therefore push up taxes further for the sake of appearing to promote equality? Well, got to hand it you, you can tell you're from Labour...

What is this bull**** about the economy being affected by the Royals no longer being power? it won't be.

People will still visit the same castles and whatnot they did before and last I checked the Queen does not go on a meet and greet with tourists during the summer which would bring in more money I reckon but as she does not we are losing like nothing.

I have met the former Co-Prince of Andorra... he is a right hyperactive guy, but is that Andorra's attraction? no...!

[Mechie]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
Then you bring in to question the whole benefits system as well. Why should we fund the life of others in any form? They're not our responsibility...

It's totally different to that, don't be so absurd. The Royals live a lavish lifestyle with many fancy things that the vast majority of us could only dream of. Somehow I think giving people a small amount of money so that they can actually live is a bit different.

[JacobW]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Somehow I think giving people enough money so they can actually live is a little different to subsidising a lavish, fancy lifestyle.

Right. So this fundamental ethical principle extends only to people whose net income is above the official poverty line? Or does the moral law consider average incomes instead?

[Mechie]

(Original post by JacobW)
Right. So this fundamental ethical principle extends only to people whose net income is above the official poverty line? Or does the moral law consider average incomes instead?

Basically, yes. If someone finds themselves unfortunate enough to not have enough money to live then we should help them to live, in order so they can continue living pretty much. It's different when you're funding someone to live a lavish lifestyle that the vast majority of us could only dream of. Your argument that they're the same is frankly absurd.

[JacobW]

(Original post by Birchington)
You are right to mention 'organic development' as a reason for scrapping the monarchy. Why should the only criteria for the eligibility of our head of state be their birthright? I would like to see every Briton have the chance to aspire to one day be head of state instead of the current inferior, undemocratic arrangement where you have to be born to a particular family and only that determines your position.

Why should every British man, woman and child be denied the dream of one day being able to be given the honour of serving as head of state? I dispute the anachronistic justifications that monarchists give for supporting the monarchy's retention.

What? I mentioned at a reason for maintaining the monarchy and refusing to coutenance ideologically motivated reform. You haven't explained why you dispute our "anachronisitic justifications" beyond a vague appeal to human rights. Rights are relationsips between people; it's about as clear as any fact of constitutiona; law that nobody has the right to become head of state unless they are born into the correct family. It's not democratic, but it does not undermine democracy; it's not meritocratic, but the hereditary principle imbues its benficiaries with a sense of duty that often creates merit surpassing any to be found through an ostensibly-meritocratic system. You want to talk about moral law? If perfect equality of oppurtunity is such a law, why is it that we have only discovered it over the last few decades? How much of a historical Whig do you want to be?

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by tehFrance)
What is this bull**** about the economy being affected by the Royals no longer being power? it won't be.

People will still visit the same castles and whatnot they did before and last I checked the Queen does not go on a meet and greet with tourists during the summer which would bring in more money I reckon but as she does not we are losing like nothing.

I have met the former Co-Prince of Andorra... he is a right hyperactive guy, but is that Andorra's attraction? no...!

no because he's either a former french president or the bishop of somewhere in spain. Andorra's monarchy is a joke of a monarchy, they're not even their primary jobs. The monarchy brings in money in tourism, its history that is still there. An ancient tradition which people flock to observe, just look at the crowds at the Royal Wedding last year, and the crowds we'll get for the jubilee. Non of that money would have been generated if not for the Royal Family.

[JacobW]

(Original post by davidmarsh01)
Basically, yes. If someone finds themselves unfortunate enough to not have enough money to live then we should help them to live, in order so they can continue living pretty much. It's different when you're funding someone to live a lavish lifestyle that the vast majority of us could only dream of. Your argument that they're the same is frankly absurd.

I don't believe they're the same; I just believe your principled objection to forced subsidisation of other's lifestyles is either incoherent or dishonest. I'm all in favour of progressive taxation, welfare, and the mixed economy in case you were wondering; I'm only a vicious right-wing Tory when it comes to constitutional reform.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by JacobW)
I don't believe they're the same; I just believe your principled objection to forced subsidisation of other's lifestyles is either incoherent or dishonest. I'm all in favour of progressive taxation, welfare, and the mixed economy in case you were wondering; I'm only a vicious right-wing Tory when it comes to constitutional reform.

Just out of interest, are you in an MHoC party yet, because if you're not you should definately join up

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
no because he's either a former french president or the bishop of somewhere in spain. Andorra's monarchy is a joke of a monarchy, they're not even their primary jobs. The monarchy brings in money in tourism, its history that is still there. An ancient tradition which people flock to observe, just look at the crowds at the Royal Wedding last year, and the crowds we'll get for the jubilee. Non of that money would have been generated if not for the Royal Family.

How dare you

Explain to me why countries such as France, Italy, Russia, Ukraine, Greece and various other countries have such a good tourist economy without Royal Family? is it because of the rich history and culture... is that something the UK lacks and thus you are scared that if the Royal family is gone, you are ****ed?

[JacobW]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
Just out of interest, are you in an MHoC party yet, because if you're not you should definately join up

I am indeed (Conservative), but I don't think much of the leadership. Then again, I don't think much of anyone more liberal than Edmund Burke so that's not saying much!

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by JacobW)
I am indeed (Conservative), but I don't think much of the leadership. Then again, I don't think much of anyone more liberal than Edmund Burke so that's not saying much!

You aren't part of the usergroup yet.

Why not come and join the Libertarians? I see you're friends with D.R.E

[D.R.E]

(Original post by JacobW)
What? I mentioned at a reason for maintaining the monarchy and refusing to coutenance ideologically motivated reform. You haven't explained why you dispute our "anachronisitic justifications" beyond a vague appeal to human rights. Rights are relationsips between people; it's about as clear as any fact of constitutiona; law that nobody has the right to become head of state unless they are born into the correct family. It's not democratic, but it does not undermine democracy; it's not meritocratic, but the hereditary principle imbues its benficiaries with a sense of duty that often creates merit surpassing any to be found through an ostensibly-meritocratic system. You want to talk about moral law? If perfect equality of oppurtunity is such a law, why is it that we have only discovered it over the last few decades? How much of a historical Whig do you want to be?

Apart from the current monarch, how many kings and queens can you name that were imbued with a 'sense of duty'? Duty to whom anyway? I'd be quite surprised it you managed to name more than three 'good[-ish]' monarchs. Before they lost their power, most were terrible and after, they did nothing useful

Let's not lie, the modern monarchy doesn't do anything. There are constitutional reasons to preserve it, but no functional ones. Even the tourism argument is tenuous at best. I think if you are going to posit that the monarchy should be preserved, there are far better arguments than the ahistoric, and quite simply untrue arguments you have thus far produced.

[D.R.E]

(Original post by MacCuishy)
You aren't part of the usergroup yet.

Why not come and join the Libertarians? I see you're friends with D.R.E

JacobW enjoys jousting with me on the boards.

[MacDaddi]

(Original post by D.R.E)
JacobW enjoys jousting with me on the boards.

Nothing like a good old jousting

[JacobW]

(Original post by D.R.E)
Apart from the current monarch, how many kings and queens can you name that were imbued with a 'sense of duty'? Duty to whom anyway? I'd be quite surprised it you managed to name more than three 'good[-ish]' monarchs. Before they lost their power, most were terrible and after, they did nothing useful.

Most of the ones who reigned since the Glorious Revolution, I think! I'd also count Elizabeth I, Charles I, and James II (obviously the latter had other defects); but I'm no historian and I no very little about medieval history. I'd certainly dispute that monarchs do nothing useful: firstly the ancientness (is that a word?) of the institution is excellent reason to prejudiced in favour of its usefulness; secondly the Queen still carries out essential ceremonial duties with more dignity and good judgement than I suspect an elected president would. Where she does have real constitutional power, her role is even more essential. The need for royal approval to open or dissolve Parliament and to pass legislation, delegated as these powers are in practice to the PM, is an excellent safeguard against dictatorship or other forms of constitutional subversion.

(Original post by D.R.E)
Let's not lie, the modern monarchy doesn't do anything. There are constitutional reasons to preserve it, but no functional ones. Even the tourism argument is tenuous at best. I think if you are going to posit that the monarchy should be preserved, there are far better arguments than the ahistoric, and quite simply untrue arguments you have thus far produced.

I'm realy not sure how you distinguish a "constitutional" reason from a "functional" one. And I'm not in the least bit interested in the purported economic benefits; as far as I'm concerned gains from tourism are dust in the balance. My arguments are not ahistoric because I don't have to appeal to specific historical facts. I can't remember if I've talked to you about constitutional reform before, but essentialy I believe the consequences of major changes like abolishing the monarchy impossible to predict but more likely devestating, since they require changes in institutions that developed through reforms of the small things whose consequences we can predict and consequently embody more wisdom and understanding than any one generation can acquire.