Elected head of state. Yes or No?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by concubine
It pisses me off that so many people view tradition as inherently right.
Idiots.
Idiots.
Pisses me off that a minority would insist the majority follow their view as the correct one for society.
If and when the opinion polls come up as about 50-50 on the matter, then is the time to hold a referendum on the matter as to whether to maintain the status quo, not before.
But given current popular public opinion, it won't happen soon.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by concubine
It pisses me off that so many people view tradition as inherently right.
Idiots.
Idiots.
I like you a lot.
Where's the option for not having a head of state at all?
Original post by anarchism101
Where's the option for not having a head of state at all?
There is an option, it's called going and living in a country that does not have one, due to being there effectively no system of government.
However, I'm assured that of those few that exist, they are really crappy places to live, so be thankful for what you have.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by concubine
It pisses me off that so many people view tradition as inherently right.
Idiots.
Idiots.
And yet you're a cheerleader for democracy, an arguably **** yet traditional political system.
How ironic.
Original post by marcusfox
There is an option, it's called going and living in a country that does not have one
Wow, it's the 'love it or leave it' argument that no-one ever applies consistently again.
due to being there effectively no system of government.
In what world does not having a head of state automatically mean you don't have a system of government?
However, I'm assured that of those few that exist, they are really crappy places to live, so be thankful for what you have.
Actually the closest places to it are places like Latin America, Switzerland, etc.
Original post by anarchism101
Wow, it's the 'love it or leave it' argument that no-one ever applies consistently again.
Well, your name demonstrates your views perfectly. If you want to live under an anarchy in your lifetime, I suggest you leave because you aren't going to find it in the UK any time soon.
Original post by anarchism101
In what world does not having a head of state automatically mean you don't have a system of government?
Actually the closest places to it are places like Latin America, Switzerland, etc.
Actually the closest places to it are places like Latin America, Switzerland, etc.
Ah, now we are playing on semantics. Countries which do not have a (person or body) as head of state do not have an effective system of government.
Switzerland has a collective head of state, but a head of state nonetheless. Latin America is very unspecific, but I'm certain that they have heads of state there also.
Yes from me because whoever represents us should be chosen by us and Prince Charles could run if he thinks he has a chance.
mfw
Original post by anarchism101
Where's the option for not having a head of state at all?
mfw
Original post by marcusfox
Well, your name demonstrates your views perfectly. If you want to live under an anarchy in your lifetime, I suggest you leave because you aren't going to find it in the UK any time soon.
That's not really a lot different to any state, tbh. And that really isn't the point, anyway. Anarchists advocate anarchy everywhere.
Ah, now we are playing on semantics. Countries which do not have a (person or body) as head of state do not have an effective system of government.
Name one.
Switzerland has a collective head of state, but a head of state nonetheless. Latin America is very unspecific, but I'm certain that they have heads of state there also.
No, they have people who are heads of government but who political scientists have also allocated to the 'head of state' category in order to fit in with their nice little models of what states should look like.
Original post by TheHansa
mfw
mfw
Somalia has plenty of states. Just not UN-recognised ones.
Original post by Eboracum
Yes the Monarchy needs to be abolished. Don't just continue with something because it is tradition.
I think after QE2 dies (and I wish her many more years of rule), we need to make a decision. Either we just abolish the role and have PM Cameron as head of state. Or we do what the Irish do and have a ceremonial elected head of state, which quite possibly Royal Family members could go for (and probably win).
The third more radical option is to do what the French do, have the President directly elected with the power, and he appoints a PM. But this is less favourable for me. Either just have a PM, or do as the Paddy's do.
Edmund Burke's philosophy: Continue with tradition. Wrong.
Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy: Radically question every tradition. Right.
I think after QE2 dies (and I wish her many more years of rule), we need to make a decision. Either we just abolish the role and have PM Cameron as head of state. Or we do what the Irish do and have a ceremonial elected head of state, which quite possibly Royal Family members could go for (and probably win).
The third more radical option is to do what the French do, have the President directly elected with the power, and he appoints a PM. But this is less favourable for me. Either just have a PM, or do as the Paddy's do.
Edmund Burke's philosophy: Continue with tradition. Wrong.
Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy: Radically question every tradition. Right.
I find that having a system that follows the desires of the people is more satisfactory.
Because it is clear that the majority of the people in this country want to continue with tradition, that is the way it should stay. After all, it's hardly arguable that the people of the UK don't know how life goes on in countries that are run as republics, neither could they be considered as oppressed by the unelected head of state.
You support democracy, you will support the people's wishes in continuing with the status quo if that is what the majority wish to do. And it's not like it's even debateable as to what those wishes are, the support for the monarchy is very clear.
Anything else is hypocrisy.
Original post by anarchism101
Name one.
I perhaps stated my position inelegantly. There are plenty of 'territories' not recognised as countries by international organisations who are currenly fighting over who the head of state should be. Maybe even a few countries from time to time.
Original post by anarchism101
No, they have people who are heads of government but who political scientists have also allocated to the 'head of state' category in order to fit in with their nice little models of what states should look like.
So a semantic definition then.
Yes.
The concept of someone being 'born to rule' now seems so foreign and outdated it's hard to see why we still continue it. Aside from the debate about how much influence our unelected leaders actually have (not just talking about the royal family here. Don't forget the House of Lords.), it still creates the situation where one family arbitrarily lives in opulence and fortune (and is also trapped by needless protocols dictating how they live their life) just because they were lucky enough to be born a Windsor.
Having said all of that, can you imagine how depressing it would be to have a President Cameron?
The concept of someone being 'born to rule' now seems so foreign and outdated it's hard to see why we still continue it. Aside from the debate about how much influence our unelected leaders actually have (not just talking about the royal family here. Don't forget the House of Lords.), it still creates the situation where one family arbitrarily lives in opulence and fortune (and is also trapped by needless protocols dictating how they live their life) just because they were lucky enough to be born a Windsor.
Having said all of that, can you imagine how depressing it would be to have a President Cameron?
Original post by marcusfox
I find that having a system that follows the desires of the people is more satisfactory.
Because it is clear that the majority of the people in this country want to continue with tradition, that is the way it should stay. After all, it's hardly arguable that the people of the UK don't know how life goes on in countries that are run as republics, neither could they be considered as oppressed by the unelected head of state.
You support democracy, you will support the people's wishes in continuing with the status quo if that is what the majority wish to do. And it's not like it's even debateable as to what those wishes are, the support for the monarchy is very clear.
Anything else is hypocrisy.
Because it is clear that the majority of the people in this country want to continue with tradition, that is the way it should stay. After all, it's hardly arguable that the people of the UK don't know how life goes on in countries that are run as republics, neither could they be considered as oppressed by the unelected head of state.
You support democracy, you will support the people's wishes in continuing with the status quo if that is what the majority wish to do. And it's not like it's even debateable as to what those wishes are, the support for the monarchy is very clear.
Anything else is hypocrisy.
The tyranny of the majority, as John Stuart Mill wrote about.
Many people in this country are idiots, and simply do not know what is good for them. I'm a bit like Plato. I know best, so I'll decide.
The thought of those plebs camping outside in the rain for days just to see a glimpse of Kate and William makes me sick to my stomach. Just how sad are people?
The majority thought putting boys up chimneys and embedded prejudices going back to the US Civil War were acceptable. And then they thought the world was flat.
Now for a more serious answer, yes, I would not hold a referendum unless polls were even...which currently they are not.
Original post by Eboracum
The tyranny of the majority, as John Stuart Mill wrote about.
Many people in this country are idiots, and simply do not know what is good for them. I'm a bit like Plato. I know best, so I'll decide.
The thought of those plebs camping outside in the rain for days just to see a glimpse of Kate and William makes me sick to my stomach. Just how sad are people?
The majority thought putting boys up chimneys and embedded prejudices going back to the US Civil War were acceptable. And then they thought the world was flat.
Now for a more serious answer, yes, I would not hold a referendum unless polls were even...which currently they are not.
Many people in this country are idiots, and simply do not know what is good for them. I'm a bit like Plato. I know best, so I'll decide.
The thought of those plebs camping outside in the rain for days just to see a glimpse of Kate and William makes me sick to my stomach. Just how sad are people?
The majority thought putting boys up chimneys and embedded prejudices going back to the US Civil War were acceptable. And then they thought the world was flat.
Now for a more serious answer, yes, I would not hold a referendum unless polls were even...which currently they are not.
Nevertheless, you can choose either the tyranny of a minority or the tyranny of a majority. It is breathtaking arrogance in the extreme to assert that a minority moral position is the correct one.
Regarding chimney sweeps and other practices not continued today - it depends how far back you go, you can find moral positions incompatible with views held today, although you can't try to argue that the majority would prefer slavery, burning of witches and heretics, or casting menstruating women out of their cities.
That's called the shifting moral zeitgeist, otherwise based on 'do not do unto others what you would not have done unto yourself'
This arose because societies started setting rules under which they would prefer to live, as living in a society was better than not. Disobey these rules and you would find yourself cast out.
Who knows, perhaps in time the shifting moral zeitgeist of the UK would see that living under a monarchy is no longer acceptable. Depends upon the popularity and behaviour of the monarch, does it not?
However, that time will not come for a long time yet, if at all.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Eboracum
The tyranny of the majority, as John Stuart Mill wrote about. Many people in this country are idiots, and simply do not know what is good for them. I'm a bit like Plato. I know best, so I'll decide. The thought of those plebs camping outside in the rain for days just to see a glimpse of Kate and William makes me sick to my stomach. Just how sad are people? The majority thought putting boys up chimneys and embedded prejudices going back to the US Civil War were acceptable. And then they thought the world was flat. Now for a more serious answer, yes, I would not hold a referendum unless polls were even...which currently they are not.
The thought of those plebs camping outside in the rain for days just to see a glimpse of Kate and William makes me sick to my stomach. Just how sad are people? The majority thought putting boys up chimneys and embedded prejudices going back to the US Civil War were acceptable. And then they thought the world was flat. Now for a more serious answer, yes, I would not hold a referendum unless polls were even...which currently they are not.Just because most people are idiots doesn't mean we don't have feelings
Original post by cwmdulais
yes! long live the monarchy! death to equality and the concept of a meritocratic society! 
Oh yer, cos politicians represent every facet of society.
The head of state doesn't necessarily have to be elected, but it should not be hereditary. Hereditary rule is an outdated principle and defies the basic moral philosophy which our society is supposed to abide by.
I understand and can appreciate the importance of a politically unbiased head of state, hence why having a monarch needs removal.
Having a singular head of state, also raises serious issues, particularly when considering how they will likely sway towards one party, or one particular view.
But if a head of state with no legitimacy (like the monarchy), then it should have no involvement in politics or the functioning of our society, rendering the point of an illegitimate head of state irrelevant. Hence why there should be no political monarchy.
But to address a serious hypocrisy with the manner in which people treat the monarchy and other heads of state. Vladimir Putin is considered something of a Tyrant, Gaddafi was 'disliked' because of his power as a head of state. In other societies we condemn the idea of ancient regimes and outdated tyrannical lordship, but in the UK we embrace it. The sheer hypocrisy of this double-standard is ridiculous.
Having a council as a head of state remains as a much more valid and efficient form of rulership. Having a head of state which can actually bring benefit to our society rather than holding it back seems like an obvious choice.
I understand and can appreciate the importance of a politically unbiased head of state, hence why having a monarch needs removal.
Having a singular head of state, also raises serious issues, particularly when considering how they will likely sway towards one party, or one particular view.
But if a head of state with no legitimacy (like the monarchy), then it should have no involvement in politics or the functioning of our society, rendering the point of an illegitimate head of state irrelevant. Hence why there should be no political monarchy.
But to address a serious hypocrisy with the manner in which people treat the monarchy and other heads of state. Vladimir Putin is considered something of a Tyrant, Gaddafi was 'disliked' because of his power as a head of state. In other societies we condemn the idea of ancient regimes and outdated tyrannical lordship, but in the UK we embrace it. The sheer hypocrisy of this double-standard is ridiculous.
Having a council as a head of state remains as a much more valid and efficient form of rulership. Having a head of state which can actually bring benefit to our society rather than holding it back seems like an obvious choice.
Original post by LouisaLouis
Interesting point.
It's true, the only opposition to the royals is the republicans and I'm pretty sure the BNP has more support than republicans. Having a politician as head of state will only divide the country.
Original post by W-Three
The head of state doesn't necessarily have to be elected, but it should not be hereditary. Hereditary rule is an outdated principle and defies the basic moral philosophy which our society is supposed to abide by.
I understand and can appreciate the importance of a politically unbiased head of state, hence why having a monarch needs removal.
Having a singular head of state, also raises serious issues, particularly when considering how they will likely sway towards one party, or one particular view.
But if a head of state with no legitimacy (like the monarchy), then it should have no involvement in politics or the functioning of our society, rendering the point of an illegitimate head of state irrelevant. Hence why there should be no political monarchy.
But to address a serious hypocrisy with the manner in which people treat the monarchy and other heads of state. Vladimir Putin is considered something of a Tyrant, Gaddafi was 'disliked' because of his power as a head of state. In other societies we condemn the idea of ancient regimes and outdated tyrannical lordship, but in the UK we embrace it. The sheer hypocrisy of this double-standard is ridiculous.
Having a council as a head of state remains as a much more valid and efficient form of rulership. Having a head of state which can actually bring benefit to our society rather than holding it back seems like an obvious choice.
I understand and can appreciate the importance of a politically unbiased head of state, hence why having a monarch needs removal.
Having a singular head of state, also raises serious issues, particularly when considering how they will likely sway towards one party, or one particular view.
But if a head of state with no legitimacy (like the monarchy), then it should have no involvement in politics or the functioning of our society, rendering the point of an illegitimate head of state irrelevant. Hence why there should be no political monarchy.
But to address a serious hypocrisy with the manner in which people treat the monarchy and other heads of state. Vladimir Putin is considered something of a Tyrant, Gaddafi was 'disliked' because of his power as a head of state. In other societies we condemn the idea of ancient regimes and outdated tyrannical lordship, but in the UK we embrace it. The sheer hypocrisy of this double-standard is ridiculous.
Having a council as a head of state remains as a much more valid and efficient form of rulership. Having a head of state which can actually bring benefit to our society rather than holding it back seems like an obvious choice.
All of the above are very valid points, however you are missing the most important point. People in the UK actually like the monarchy. Supporters are in an obvious and demonstrable majority.
You talk about hypocrisy. How about the hypocrisy of a minority denying the wishes of the majority - i.e. to keep the status quo - and replacing it with the wishes of the minority - i.e. republicanism - in the name of better 'democracy'?
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- GCSE
- How is prom king and queen elected?
- Was Jeremy Corbyn a Better Labour leader than Kier Starmer
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3A (9PL0 3A) 16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Advice on completing high school & further education after taking time out?
- who is donald trump
- how to become a government minister?
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Kamala Harris is the Democrat VP pick
- Australia visa for clinical elective
- Should the royal family exist?
- Module Selection Help
- Political Quiz: Are you a fascist?
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- How to get an A* in Politics?
- Should i vote Labour?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
