ianrobo1 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 ok just cjecked the voting figures and Ok very small sample but surprised 63% have voted for a republic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Another person used this argument about "elected politicians"....Adolph Hitler. :shock: What are you on about? When you get diagnosed with a serious illness and walk into the room to discuss the prognosis, do you want: a) an expert in the field, or the general public? p.s. read the thread and I have not said anything against electing one's representatives in a political system which maintains a pretence of democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 the royalists on here still have no answered how it can be right in modern times for someone to be in a position of some power and defintely influence by virtue of brith and circumstances Yes they have, you really ignore posts you don't want to read, don't you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 the royalists on here still have no answered how it can be right in modern times for someone to be in a position of some power and defintely influence by virtue of brith and circumstances Yes they have, you really ignore posts you don't want to read, don't you! Pot and kettle comes to mind. Justify imposed heads of state please. Should the people have the right to choose the nations figurehead, a simple yes or no will suffice. I say in a truly free country the answer is yes. Other than money from tourism , not a very altruistic reason, and one which has already been debunked, I cannot recall another sensible justification. Unless simply liking Kings & Queens is a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 But the fact of the matter it's not a simple yes or no.... in the UK, the Head of State/Head of the Commonwealth, etc, effectively would never use the power enabled to them, they are good for international relations. And to be honest, if the head of state was given to public vote, we would have every chance of a Dubya, I prefer our methodolgy thanks very much Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I cannot recall another sensible justification. I'm not sure that 'sensible' is the adjective most commonly applied to arguments which revert to a 'ooh...Hitler had the same ideas'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 they are good for international relations. Should the people not be allowed to vote for who they think is "good for international relations"? You still haven't answered Ian's question, even if you claim you have. "They don't use their power" isn't an answer. The question is, should someone be in a position to have, and potentially use, that sort of power and infuence on the basis of birth and if so how can that be defended from a democratic point of view? And to be honest, if the head of state was given to public vote, we would have every chance of a Dubya So, when being honest, you don't really want the people to decide their head of state because "we would have every chance of a Dubya". In other words, when being honest you're not really a democrat? That's fine, I suppose, I certainly don't agree with it but famous philosophers like Thomas Hobbes did and he was probably a more clever man that me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 So, when being honest, you don't really want the people to decide their head of state because "we would have every chance of a Dubya". In other words, when being honest you're not really a democrat? That's fine, I suppose, I certainly don't agree with it but famous philosophers like Thomas Hobbes did and he was probably a more clever man that me. Why is democracy the panacea of all political and eonomic ills? Are the people the best to govern or the most righteous to govern? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Why is democracy the panacea of all political and eonomic ills? Are the people the best to govern or the most righteous to govern? That's a whole new thread, I suppose, but it's all about freedom and liberty for me. The people may not be the best to govern, but it certainly is our fundamental right as adult human beings to vote over who to govern us imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted May 22, 2008 VT Supporter Share Posted May 22, 2008 That's a whole new thread, I suppose, but it's all about freedom and liberty for me. The people may not be the best to govern, but it certainly is our fundamental right as adult human beings to vote over who to govern us imo. And yet people have shown a great tendency to democratically elect governments that go on to trample on political freedoms (and those first elections often as not have no serious allegations of vote fraud), especially those of minorities on whatever basis (those who are minorities thanks to what piece of dirt they inhabit, what accent they speak, or the color of their shirts). That's what blind faith in democracy gets you. Democracy and freedom/liberty are at best only peripherally related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 So, when being honest, you don't really want the people to decide their head of state because "we would have every chance of a Dubya". In other words, when being honest you're not really a democrat? That's fine, I suppose, I certainly don't agree with it but famous philosophers like Thomas Hobbes did and he was probably a more clever man that me. Not entirely true, I am all in favour of a democratically elected government, for that I call myself a democrat, as far as the UK goes, I agree with the current system for our head of state. I class myself as a democrat, because the people that make the decisions are the ones I voted for.. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 That's a whole new thread, I suppose, but it's all about freedom and liberty for me. The people may not be the best to govern, but it certainly is our fundamental right as adult human beings to vote over who to govern us imo. And yet people have shown a great tendency to democratically elect governments that go on to trample on political freedoms (and those first elections often as not have no serious allegations of vote fraud), especially those of minorities on whatever basis (those who are minorities thanks to what piece of dirt they inhabit, what accent they speak, or the color of their shirts). That's what blind faith in democracy gets you. Democracy and freedom/liberty are at best only peripherally related. This is why constitutional rights are so important, of course. But like I said, this is turning into a whole new thread that involves agreeing on a definition of democracy and a definition of freedom - not going to happen in this thread, I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 So, when being honest, you don't really want the people to decide their head of state because "we would have every chance of a Dubya". In other words, when being honest you're not really a democrat? That's fine, I suppose, I certainly don't agree with it but famous philosophers like Thomas Hobbes did and he was probably a more clever man that me. Not entirely true, I am all in favour of a democratically elected government, for that I call myself a democrat, as far as the UK goes, I agree with the current system for our head of state. I class myself as a democrat, because the people that make the decisions are the ones I voted for.. QED. So if the people can and should elect their government, why can't and shouldn't they elect their head of state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 I didn't say they can't or should Mich, I said in the UK, it works, it's not undemocratic, I find it very good (even if I don't like the current government, they were elected democratically), the Royal are excellent embassadors.. Why is that so difficult to understand, I really don't think a president would have the same international image, you really don't see global protests when the Royals travel, as you do with the US/French, etc presidents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 I didn't say they can't or should Mich, I said in the UK, it works, it's not undemocratic, I find it very good (even if I don't like the current government, they were elected democratically), the Royal are excellent embassadors.. Why is that so difficult to understand, I really don't think a president would have the same international image, you really don't see global protests when the Royals travel, as you do with the US/French, etc presidents Okay, that's fine, we won't agree about this anyway so I'll leave it there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 22, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 22, 2008 I didn't say they can't or should Mich, I said in the UK, it works, it's not undemocratic, I find it very good (even if I don't like the current government, they were elected democratically), the Royal are excellent embassadors.. Why is that so difficult to understand, I really don't think a president would have the same international image, you really don't see global protests when the Royals travel, as you do with the US/French, etc presidents UK - A democracy? Thats a debate in itself. Why are the Royals excellent ambassadors? Whats stopping them being exactly the same in a republic? If they are that good at it, lets see them taking up the post of ambassador to lets say........The Lebanon. They can legitamately earn a decent living by being in the diplomatic corps Why don't you see huge protests where the Rotals go on their free holidays? Because they don't go anywhere controversial thats why But hold on, why do the inbred family make excellent ambassadors? Are you telling me that Prince Phillip is welcomed everywhere he goes? He's more likely to start WW III with his pathetic seemingly uncontrollable racism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrogers Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Oh Bicks, So Andrew and Harry went nowhere controversial, when was the last time you went into a war zone? I see... and I have already mentioned Phillip earlier in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted May 22, 2008 Moderator Share Posted May 22, 2008 Andrew and harry went there as members of the Armed forces. Interestingly, they didn't join up like the rest of us - no, they never went to a Careers Office, had to take the tests and so on. it was decided, because of who they are that they would be Officers. No selection process. Then, because of who they are, they get treated differently - soon as the internet said Harry was in Afghanistan " bring him home" As people, they've done fine - like all the rest of the forces sent to war zones. They've earned their wages. They went as part of their jobs, like the rest of us have to do our jobs. Apart from the automatic right to get in, the automatic right to be an officer, the zero chance of them getting failed on the training courses, it's a good argument for a Republic - Let the Windsor Family earn a living like everyone else, instead of inheriting a constituational position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianrobo1 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 er Nick you are not like to see the troops protest at Royals nor at polticians and Nick the Royals have the power but do not choose to use it, would you accept that ? what happens if one decided to ? alos I have tied other things on the back of this would you like to see a written consitituion ? Do you believe more power should be devolved locally ? Who should make the descion to go to war a PM, the cabinet, the Parliament, the people ? snowy yuou make an interesting point on Democracy, but it is the only system where people are free, In China a forum and debate like this would nt be allowed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 what happens if one decided to ? Now that is an interesting question (albeit hypothetical :winkold:). Were it to happen then I think that one of two things would occur: 1) if the general public were of the opinion that the government of the day were abusing the power that the executive has (power taken away from parliament), then they might well allow it to occur and perhaps there may be a reigning back of sme of the thoroughly undemocratic practices which occur in relation to the legislative processes. 2) if the general public were unhappy, the monarchy's day would be over very swiftly (but perhaps more decently than other nations have treated their Royals after the welcome has been outstayed ). Who should make the descion to go to war a PM, the cabinet, the Parliament, the people ? Parliament. snowy yuou make an interesting point on Democracy, but it is the only system where people are free, In China a forum and debate like this would nt be allowed Ian, I think this other post said it best: Democracy and freedom/liberty are at best only peripherally related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts