Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The Reign of Terror

    There is no good reason to change the current system.
    I was hoping for a more up to date, relevant response.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The Reign of Terror

    There is no good reason to change the current system.
    Yeah because the attitudes and moral zeitgeist of the 18th century is still in place.

    I predict that the only violence to occur in a reforming Britain would be from protesting monarchists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    None of you could provide a good reason...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Yeah because the attitudes and moral zeitgeist of the 18th century is still in place.

    I predict that the only violence to occur in a reforming Britain would be from protesting monarchists.
    So the majoraty of the population then
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No, they enjoy it because of the office they are in, regardless of how they got there.
    They enjoy it because of the office they're in because they're born into it - the issue that was raised before. He was saying that it wasn't right for people to be born into such prominent positions, and he's right.

    Because most of us are quite happy with it. We are a democracy, that does not mean everything the government does must be dominated by the public - that's simply mob rule. Democracy is quite properly moderated by other influences.
    We are a democracy, yes, but he is not for a second suggesting that the government should be "dominated" by the public. He is suggesting that we should have the right to choose how exactly we are governed, and this seems like a fair point. The idea that being able to choose a fully democratic government would equate to mob rule is preposterous.

    Appealing to novelty is a logical fallacy, you do realise.

    Plus 'parasitic' - **** you. The Queen works a full time job, despite being in her 80s, for no salary whatsoever - not because she wants to, but because she sees it as her duty to the country.

    The world would be a better place without the likes of you.
    This part of your post actually disgusted me. You are attacking another poster for having a view opposite to your own. Saying "**** you" because of someone's opinion on the political system is an absolute disgrace. You support the Monarchy, and that's fine, but that doesn't make you superior to anyone who disagrees, so get rid of your high and mighty attitude. (Incidentally, the world would be a better place without people who jump down the throat of others who disagree with their principles.)
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    None of you could provide a good reason...
    You didn't ask us for one. And I think that it's unfair to worship someone and bestow honour upon someone purely because of their birth. A title should be gained by the people most suited to the role, and we should be able as part of our democracy to choose who governs for us. Added to that, the role of a Monarch is generally ceremonious at best and other countries without a monarchy seem to govern exceptionally well (e.g. France [in the modern day, before the Reign of Terror is brought back up] and Germany who are well governed countries). I think those are perfectly adequate reasons for not having a monarchy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    You didn't ask us for one. And I think that it's unfair to worship someone and bestow honour upon someone purely because of their birth. A title should be gained by the people most suited to the role, and we should be able as part of our democracy to choose who governs for us. Added to that, the role of a Monarch is generally ceremonious at best and other countries without a monarchy seem to govern exceptionally well (e.g. France [in the modern day, before the Reign of Terror is brought back up] and Germany who are well governed countries). I think those are perfectly adequate reasons for not having a monarchy.
    So your only argument is that it's "unfair"? :rolleyes:
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    So your only argument is that it's "unfair"? :rolleyes:
    No, read it again. And even if it were, that's a perfectly good reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    No, read it again. And even if it were, that's a perfectly good reason.
    No, that was your only real reason.

    And no again it isn't a good reason at all. It's based on yuor obsession with equality and your hatred of such ancient institutions.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    No, that was your only real reason.

    And no again it isn't a good reason at all. It's based on yuor obsession with equality and your hatred of such ancient institutions.
    No it wasn't.
    And an obsession with equality is not a bad thing so don't dress it up as one. It's not right that people are worshipped as such because of their birth and it contradicts the idea of a democracy in my opinion. I feel it is a outdated system which we do not need. As I said to L i b, if you support the monarchy, then fine, but don't attack others for not sharing the same political beliefs.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    The only people who oppose the monarchy are those steeped envy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    They enjoy it because of the office they're in because they're born into it - the issue that was raised before. He was saying that it wasn't right for people to be born into such prominent positions, and he's right.
    He isn't, and I don't think you've really addressed the point I made.

    We are a democracy, yes, but he is not for a second suggesting that the government should be "dominated" by the public. He is suggesting that we should have the right to choose how exactly we are governed, and this seems like a fair point. The idea that being able to choose a fully democratic government would equate to mob rule is preposterous.
    Preposterous? It's one of the oldest political concepts on earth! Every state has made its business the curtailing of the rule of the mob and its replacement with reasoned debate, deliberation and appropriate checks and balances on power. The public is no better a dictator than any other.

    You argue he wasn't suggesting that - this was exactly what he was suggesting.

    This part of your post actually disgusted me. You are attacking another poster for having a view opposite to your own. Saying "**** you" because of someone's opinion on the political system is an absolute disgrace. You support the Monarchy, and that's fine, but that doesn't make you superior to anyone who disagrees, so get rid of your high and mighty attitude. (Incidentally, the world would be a better place without people who jump down the throat of others who disagree with their principles.)
    It has nothing whatsoever to do with his political views, but rather his apparent belief that throwing insults at our head of state - who has worked tirelessly in the service of this country - is acceptable. He's a disrespectful little ****.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    No it wasn't.
    And an obsession with equality is not a bad thing so don't dress it up as one. It's not right that people are worshipped as such because of their birth and it contradicts the idea of a democracy in my opinion. I feel it is a outdated system which we do not need. As I said to L i b, if you support the monarchy, then fine, but don't attack others for not sharing the same political beliefs.
    An obsession with equality is most definitely a bad thing. It was the basis of Marxist-Leninist tyranny.

    Egalitarianism is based on multiple illusions and should be throughly discredited.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I am conflicted with regards to the monarchy. One has to remember that traditionally the whole point is that they were 'chosen by God', and as an atheist I find this a ridiculous rationalisation of unelected power. However, I see the benefit of the monarchy, and would want to keep it until we no longer need it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    HM The Queen has the right to both reign and rule, just as you have the right to live in your house. Monarchy is the truest expression of the property principle. It's got nothing to do with what people want or think best - for once the mob does not have the right to judge. Just like your neighbours can't turn your house into a bike shed because it would be more convenient for the neighbourhood.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    He isn't, and I don't think you've really addressed the point I made.



    Preposterous? It's one of the oldest political concepts on earth! Every state has made its business the curtailing of the rule of the mob and its replacement with reasoned debate, deliberation and appropriate checks and balances on power. The public is no better a dictator than any other.

    You argue he wasn't suggesting that - this was exactly what he was suggesting.



    It has nothing whatsoever to do with his political views, but rather his apparent belief that throwing insults at our head of state - who has worked tirelessly in the service of this country - is acceptable. He's a disrespectful little ****.

    I think it is preposterous to say that a fully democratic system would be mob rule. Yes, it may be difficult to keep the balance of power favourable, but I think it's not realistic to say that it would equate to mob rule to have a fully democratic system - other countries manage it quite well. If the public are deciding how the country is governed then it's not a dicatorship so it's unfair to label it a dictator, especially when it is a dynamic, ever changing entity whose attitudes and opinions change with the times. It is not one centralised power and I therefore feel that it is an unfair comparison.

    As for your diatribe towards the OP, I think it was a case of you being slightly too defensive of your beliefs. Yes, you're right to say that she works hard in her limited role and she is probably a good person, so a personal attack against her was not right, but I believe his use of the word "parasitic" was employed more to describe the idea of a monarch's role in the current political world, which may not be completely unfair. Also I do seem to remember that in a topic like this a while back, you told me to "go hang" because I was a Republican so I thought this was nothing new. I respect your beliefs, but I think this debate could and should be much less heated than it is.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    An obsession with equality is most definitely a bad thing. It was the basis of Marxist-Leninist tyranny.

    Egalitarianism is based on multiple illusions and should be throughly discredited.
    I wouldn't go so far as to be a Marxist. I'm not militantly egalitarian, but I do believe in a basic equality which would mean that nobody should be considered superior to another due to their birth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    I am conflicted with regards to the monarchy. One has to remember that traditionally the whole point is that they were 'chosen by God', and as an atheist I find this a ridiculous rationalisation of unelected power. However, I see the benefit of the monarchy, and would want to keep it until we no longer need it.
    "1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

    2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

    - Romans 13:1-13:2 (King James Version)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaoPaolo90)
    I think it is preposterous to say that a fully democratic system would be mob rule.
    That is, by very definition, what it is.

    other countries manage it quite well.
    No they don't. No country has a 'fully' democratic system. Indeed, those who have entirely elected legislatures tend to have entrenched constitutions - unlike Britain - for this very reason.

    If the public are deciding how the country is governed then it's not a dicatorship so it's unfair to label it a dictator, especially when it is a dynamic, ever changing entity whose attitudes and opinions change with the times.
    Oh , so it's an inconsistent and arbitrary dictatorship? How wonderful. I think I'd prefer the run-of-the-mill dictator myself - at least they tend to know how to do pomp.

    so a personal attack against her was not right, but I believe his use of the word "parasitic" was employed more to describe the idea of a monarch's role in the current political world, which may not be completely unfair.
    Well, at least we agree on one point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    "1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

    2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

    - Romans 13:1-13:2 (King James Version)
    Right, ok. But the monarchy still claimed to be appointed by God, The 'divine right of kings', I believe it was called. This now isn't the case, and we have shifted to constitutional monarchy as opposed to absolute monarchy ("OFF WITH HIS HEAD!"). As such, I find it hard to accept the principles under which the monarchy was established, but find it equally hard to justify its immediate removal. What would be the point? As such, I'd reccomend to 'let it be', for now, as the monarchy has no current negative effects that come immediately to mind.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.