[Thunder and Jazz]

(Original post by Collingwood)
Yes. We also plan to cancel christmas, make it illegal for anyone other than an EU registered electrician to change a lightbulb and implement a complete ban on fun.

Your wit leaves me writhing on the floor...

I fail to see how a ban on fun joke is related to stopping people get stabbed without hindering what they were supposed to be doing in the first place. But then stabbing is pretty fun...

[Collingwood]

Libertarians want to live in a free society where people are treated as adults. A society in which no one can even buy a real kitchen knife is just laughable - an oversized, overpompous daycare centre run by imbeciles and spivs more than a country. I would probably emigrate if that happened.

(I really thought you were joking)

[Thunder and Jazz]

I'm not so much joking as getting a feel for the various party's attitudes. I'm a bit of a newbie see.

My personal view is that although I can see the point of such a measure, I'd like to avoid a full on nanny state if at all possible. Like you say, people should be treated as adults, and the way to deal with domestic violence is (in my view) not to remove the weapons but to change the culture.

[Bobo1234]

(Original post by Collingwood)
Yes. We also plan to cancel christmas, make it illegal for anyone other than an EU registered electrician to change a lightbulb and implement a complete ban on fun.

seconded and pos repped.

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
Would the Libertarians support a measure removing the pointed tip from kitchen knives? (the argument being that you don't actually use said tip to cut most of the time and this makes the knife a less lethal weapon).

Does "less lethal" actually make sense? I mean, either something is lethal or it is not. Anyway, it'd be totally pointless unless we banned all pointy sharp things (screw drivers, kebab skewers... wood etc) so no, Libertarians wouldn't, I suspect, support it.

[ThePants999]

(Original post by Collingwood)
People are perfectly entitled to kill themselves if they want to. I don't see why that would be a problem.

This. My personal view is that the state certainly has no role to play in preventing people from committing suicide.

[Anony mouse]

In reference to my support for the Monarchy:

(Original post by paperclip)
That's what i never understand, you claim to want to give the nanny state the finger but support a system that claims the state is better then you, the queen and her descendent are always better then you no matter your ability. When it comes to the monarchy you go backwards and claim the position doesn't need to be earnt.

I am perhaps more accurately described as a Libertarian Nationalist. Although being a Royalist may contradict my Libertarian views, I do believe that the British Constitutional Monarchy is beneficial to us all.

I am an ardent defender of personal freedoms. Naturally, there are dangers in concentrating too much power in an Absolute Monarch, which can become authoritarian. However the British Monarchy has virtually no powers. Therefore, the Crown cannot intrude on our personal freedoms.

Of course, the Monarchy is paid for from taxation. Yet, although I believe in minimal taxation, I believe that the cost of the Monarchy is outweighed by the benefit of the tax revenue from the tourist trade. So I believe that the Monarchy is actually profitable.

It is normal to argue that when the state is unnecessary there is no further need for the Monarchy either. But I am not an Anarchist. I do believe that we need a state, albeit much smaller than what we currently have in contemporary British politics.

I also believe in the importance of culture and identity and so, despite being a daughter of immigrants, I consider myself to be an Anglophile. The British Monarchy fulfills a natural role of providing a Head of State without the opportunity to abuse this position.

Therefore, for the reasons stated I believe my Royalist viewpoint is justified by the conjunction of my patriotic sentiments with my Libertarian ideals.

[paperclip]

(Original post by Anony mouse)
In reference to my support for the Monarchy:



I am perhaps more accurately described as a Libertarian Nationalist. Although being a Royalist may contradict my Libertarian views, I do believe that the British Constitutional Monarchy is beneficial to us all.

I am an ardent defender of personal freedoms. Naturally, there are dangers in concentrating too much power in an Absolute Monarch, which can become authoritarian. However the British Monarchy has virtually no powers. Therefore, the Crown cannot intrude on our personal freedoms.

The monarch retains the power to exercise personal discretion over issues such as appointing the prime minister and dissolving Parliament. Queenie also has to grant royal assent to legislation, what if she refused? And Queenie has the power to declare war and make peace, to recognise foreign states, to conclude treaties and to take over or give up territory.

EDIT: source

Of course, the Monarchy is paid for from taxation. Yet, although I believe in minimal taxation, I believe that the cost of the Monarchy is outweighed by the benefit of the tax revenue from the tourist trade. So I believe that the Monarchy is actually profitable.

We're arguing this in the lib dem subforum - people don't come to england merely because there's a monarchy here, people are already here and decide to visit the palaces, which would still remain open if queenie was out. For example, the French get a good income from opening up palaces to the general public.

[CyclopsRock]

As someone who actively dislikes the decision-making element of democracy, I have no problem squaring to my mind a head of state who doesn't need to pander to the electorate, so long as they're held hostage by the legislature who are. It's the same reason why I support an unelected 2nd house. I don't care for the hereditary nature of it.

I also don't care for the tourism argument, but the fact remains that the royal families profit from their estates (which are theirs as families, even if they weren't the royal family) goes straight into the treasury, which more than pays for their "salaries" - they actively earn our treasury money.

[paperclip]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
As someone who actively dislikes the decision-making element of democracy, I have no problem squaring to my mind a head of state who doesn't need to pander to the electorate, so long as they're held hostage by the legislature who are. It's the same reason why I support an unelected 2nd house. I don't care for the hereditary nature of it.

Give nanny state the finger, as you soo tactfully put it. People should have control over their lives, over what their taxes are funding, even if it's making us a profit. Surely, the government are investing our money in Queenie hoping for an unguaranteed return.

I also don't care for the tourism argument, but the fact remains that the royal families profit from their estates (which are theirs as families, even if they weren't the royal family) goes straight into the treasury, which more than pays for their "salaries" - they actively earn our treasury money.

Got any figures?
And i bet the royal family don't pay inheritance tax (well, noone in our parliament does, but you know what i mean).

[CyclopsRock]

(Original post by paperclip)
Give nanny state the finger, as you soo tactfully put it. People should have control over their lives, over what their taxes are funding, even if it's making us a profit. Surely, the government are investing our money in Queenie hoping for an unguaranteed return.

Well yes, but being elected doesn't make you any more guaranteed. People are incredibly stupid.

Got any figures?
And i bet the royal family don't pay inheritance tax (well, noone in our parliament does, but you know what i mean).

Aha, they do, actually - an immense ammount, in fact. To answer both points (and it's from wikipedia, admittedly, for which I apologise):

"Monies to support the Queen in the exercise of her duties as head of state of the United Kingdom (the Head of State Expenditure) come from the Civil List. This is a return of a small portion of the revenue from the Crown Lands that are surrendered by the monarch to parliament at the beginning of each reign; all Crown Land being administered by The Crown Estates, an institution that is answerable to parliament. In the 2003-04 fiscal year, the amount surrendered was £176.9 million, where the Head of State Expenditure was £36 million."

[paperclip]

(Original post by CyclopsRock)
Well yes, but being elected doesn't make you any more guaranteed. People are incredibly stupid.

Facism

Aha, they do, actually - an immense ammount, in fact. To answer both points (and it's from wikipedia, admittedly, for which I apologise):

"Monies to support the Queen in the exercise of her duties as head of state of the United Kingdom (the Head of State Expenditure) come from the Civil List. This is a return of a small portion of the revenue from the Crown Lands that are surrendered by the monarch to parliament at the beginning of each reign; all Crown Land being administered by The Crown Estates, an institution that is answerable to parliament. In the 2003-04 fiscal year, the amount surrendered was £176.9 million, where the Head of State Expenditure was £36 million."

Interesting, i shall continue insulting queenie when i haven't been up all night...

[Mr_K_Dilkington]

(Original post by paperclip)
Facism

Erm... plenty of fascists are elected, has nothing to do with it. Are the civil service fascists then?

I'm not really bothered one way or the other, but there is a definite advantage to a constitutional monarchy, having an apolitical head of state does have definite advantages.

[UniOfLife]

To me it's a simple question of "what's the alternative". If we must have some Head of State for ceremonial purposes we then face two choices - either an elected Head of State or the ceremonial Monarchy we have now. To me the latter is far better in that it is cheaper and we don't have former politicians being our Head of State and meddling in politics.

The only argument for Republicanism that makes any sense is that Monarchy is not meritocratic. Now aside from the fact that the Socialists (and Left generally) have no real right to make any argument that bases itself on wanting a meritocracy the argument is nothing other than form over substance. Removing the Monarchy (and imposing a more expensive and meddling President) just for the sake of removing one un-meritocratic position is stupid.

[Alasdair]

The only extra expense I can see in a President is holding elections - which is outweighed by the fact that we only pay him ~100K a year rather than 36 Million.

And it's certainly not a given that a president would be 'meddling'.

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Alasdair)
The only extra expense I can see in a President is holding elections - which is outweighed by the fact that we only pay him ~100K a year rather than 36 Million.

And it's certainly not a given that a president would be 'meddling'.

You forget all the other stuff. An elected Head of State needs all the trappings: houses, jets, cars, dinners, tours, expenses

The cost per year of keeping an elected Head of State in the style that he or she would demand would be more, I reckon, than the 60p per person it currently costs to keep the Monarchy.

And that is besides the costs of elections which, I think, work out in the region of £130 million or so (will need to find a more accurate source but based on the £200,000 cost of a by-election multiplied by the 646 constituencies in the UK).

And yes, I think it is a given that an elected president will meddle in politics. After all, they're almost certainly going to be a former MP or politician and they are elected by the people.

[Alasdair]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
You forget all the other stuff. An elected Head of State needs all the trappings: houses, jets, cars, dinners, tours, expenses

The cost per year of keeping an elected Head of State in the style that he or she would demand would be more, I reckon, than the 60p per person it currently costs to keep the Monarchy.

I doubt it will be more, but as neither of us have firm figures...

And that is besides the costs of elections which, I think, work out in the region of £130 million or so (will need to find a more accurate source but based on the £200,000 cost of a by-election multiplied by the 646 constituencies in the UK).

That's bit of a misleading figure/statistic. You'd use the same dates/infrastructure as Local/European/General Elections, which would save a lot...

And yes, I think it is a given that an elected president will meddle in politics. After all, they're almost certainly going to be a former MP or politician and they are elected by the people.

I'd suggest looking at the systems in Germany and Italy, for example, where the President makes roughly the same decisions as the Queen does here...

[UniOfLife]

(Original post by Alasdair)
I doubt it will be more, but as neither of us have firm figures...

That's bit of a misleading figure/statistic. You'd use the same dates/infrastructure as Local/European/General Elections, which would save a lot...

I'm not sure you could do that tbh as it wouldn't always work out. But still the cost of the election is not negligible and it is more than exists currently.

I also think that we can be fairly sure that the cost of an elected head would be more since he would retire after some time while not being dead. This means that he would continue to draw a large pension, continue to have security and so on. Costs that do not exist with the Queen.

He would be politically active - look at the presidents of Italy and how all of them were members of political parties immediately prior to being elected, this seems inevitable.

You're right we have no firm figures so in the meantime I will stick with what seems logical to me - that an elected head will cost more. As such it seems wrong to go republican for the sake of appearances only. This besides the unwanted addition of an extra meddling politician in a position of authority.

[Alasdair]

(Original post by UniOfLife)
He would be politically active - look at the presidents of Italy and how all of them were members of political parties immediately prior to being elected, this seems inevitable.

No, look at Italy and Germany, or Ireland (probably closest to our model) where these guys are elder statesmen whose roles are largely ceremonial and if not a-political, then certainly non-partisan.

[ukebert]

I have sympathy with DG's point of view, in that I agree that people are stupid and misinformed, which is the main flaw with democracy. This is why I support an unelected upper house, or an upper house that is elected in a radically different way. I hope that when we abolish the monarchy we shall divest the power into the Lords and the Commons, rather than have an elected president, which I'm not sure is significantly better than the monarchy.