User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 43

  1. #11
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    Oh ok so this is a childhood, romantic thing for you. It's okay. I understand. I'm an NF.

    However, it's not really rational to relate to people who no longer serve a governing purpose other than to be a tax burdern upon not only the UK, but Canada as well.

    I'd love to be able to relate to royalty - to have gone to private schools and to have my entire life paid for by other people just because of who my great-great-grandparents were. However, realistically, if England wants to take money from their college students, it makes no real sense to keep throwing money for expensive weddings at symbolic royals for sentimental purposes.
    Well, if you're a royal, the downside is that your entire life is scheduled and scripted, you live under a microscope 24/7/365, and every little choice you make could have unforeseen consequences. I don't think I would choose that, even on someone else's dime.

  2. #12
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Well, if you're a royal, the downside is that your entire life is scheduled and scripted, you live under a microscope 24/7/365, and every little choice you make could have unforeseen consequences. I don't think I would choose that, even on someone else's dime.
    No, I wouldn't want to be famous, either.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Well, if you're a royal, the downside is that your entire life is scheduled and scripted, you live under a microscope 24/7/365, and every little choice you make could have unforeseen consequences. I don't think I would choose that, even on someone else's dime.
    You're saying that there is an element of truth that the monarchy has gone from head of state to a pawn of state?

    I dont like people complaining about the monarchy's inherited status and wealth when there are others who are much more obscenely wealthy, engage in much more tax evasion and avoidance and are especially able to do so because they are part of the trans-national capitalist class and owe no loyalty or have no especially bond to any nation state globally.

    I've not heard of any of the royals in the UK doing anything with their personal wealth or tax payers money on the scale of some of the fortune five hundred, there was one guy who was having laser tag dog fight's above their estate in their private jet fighters. Equally so the exchange of gifts between the Pope and Queen during his visit was almost a spectactular embarrassment to the House of Windsor, the Pope giving them a priceless first edition manuscript and the Queen providing a facsimile copy of something they have in storage!!

    It might all also appear a bit naff, UK attempts to preserve some sembalence of respectability or nobility on the world stage or attempts for the Nth time to resurrect some kind of shared identity from vanished traditions or create new ones but all these things have major significance.

    The ability of the UK to stage a royal wedding at this time is like the UK hosting the olympic games etc. Its a fiscal show of strength. Which in terms of economic warfare, the prevailing sort of conflict between power blocs and nation states, which we know of (that is excluding proxy wars, terror and spying), is majorly important. Especially in a world of currency speculators and market confidence.

    Where the UK to say they simply wherent going to pay of any of this shit it would quickly get construed as "we cant pay for any of this shit" resulting in a crisis of confidence and capital flight, not so when its welfare which is in question, which is a political point too but a seperate one.

  4. #14
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    No, I wouldn't want to be famous, either.
    Oh, it's not just the fame... it's the fame in conjunction with a predefined role, that being the expectation that you represent all the best features of the United Kingdom. Have a bad day and snap at the nanny? Expect to read about it in the tabloids, in tones of snarky disapproval.

    Being famous is one thing. Mick Jagger is famous. People just don't expect Mick to live up to any particular standard.

  5. #15
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    You're saying that there is an element of truth that the monarchy has gone from head of state to a pawn of state?

    I dont like people complaining about the monarchy's inherited status and wealth when there are others who are much more obscenely wealthy, engage in much more tax evasion and avoidance and are especially able to do so because they are part of the trans-national capitalist class and owe no loyalty or have no especially bond to any nation state globally.

    I've not heard of any of the royals in the UK doing anything with their personal wealth or tax payers money on the scale of some of the fortune five hundred, there was one guy who was having laser tag dog fight's above their estate in their private jet fighters. Equally so the exchange of gifts between the Pope and Queen during his visit was almost a spectactular embarrassment to the House of Windsor, the Pope giving them a priceless first edition manuscript and the Queen providing a facsimile copy of something they have in storage!!

    It might all also appear a bit naff, UK attempts to preserve some sembalence of respectability or nobility on the world stage or attempts for the Nth time to resurrect some kind of shared identity from vanished traditions or create new ones but all these things have major significance.

    The ability of the UK to stage a royal wedding at this time is like the UK hosting the olympic games etc. Its a fiscal show of strength. Which in terms of economic warfare, the prevailing sort of conflict between power blocs and nation states, which we know of (that is excluding proxy wars, terror and spying), is majorly important. Especially in a world of currency speculators and market confidence.

    Where the UK to say they simply wherent going to pay of any of this shit it would quickly get construed as "we cant pay for any of this shit" resulting in a crisis of confidence and capital flight, not so when its welfare which is in question, which is a political point too but a seperate one.
    You're entitled to your point of view, in fact I see some merit and strong points in your argument, but on the other hand ...they are pretty obscenely wealthy, and they take tax money to do what they do.

  6. #16
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    The Royal Family costs about £36.7m per year. But they perhaps bring in billions in tourism and help cozy up trade and foreign affairs relationsips. So maybe it's a great investment economically, and even strategic to retain a powerless Monarchy. There's also a level prestige a nation can acquire by instilling their traditional indefinitely. Like Constitution-humpers in the US.

    But on the grounds of symbolism, the monarchy represents something of a brutal authoritarian institution of the past, with little regard to normal people.

  7. #17
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    they are pretty obscenely wealthy, and they take tax money to do what they do.
    In theory, this is something a socialist and a libertarian should be able to hate equally.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    The Royal Family costs about £36.7m per year. But they perhaps bring in billions in tourism and help cozy up trade and foreign affairs relationsips. So maybe it's a great investment economically, and even strategic to retain a powerless Monarchy. There's also a level prestige a nation can acquire by instilling their traditional indefinitely. Like Constitution-humpers in the US.

    But on the grounds of symbolism, the monarchy represents something of a brutal authoritarian institution of the past, with little regard to normal people.
    Does it? Is that an objective examination of monarchy on balance or just the repitition of post-enlightenment prejudice? In the stories of monarchies and emperors there where as many "the good king so and so" stories as those condemning the individual or institution.

    At the very, very least political republicanism and limited democracy have just provided a slightly different from of dynastic rule but it is dynastic rule all the same, the tragedy of the commons and rise of the political classes have cancelled out the hopes that existed early on for a greater flowering of popular sovereignty.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    In theory, this is something a socialist and a libertarian should be able to hate equally.
    There are superficial similarities you know, Engels at least used to go on about how much he hated salaried and pensioned civil servants and officials, the writing and correspondence, along with some by Marx which appeared to agree or at least not outright condemn where repressed by the Soviet authorities, forgotten in most quarters and western market libertarians have colluded in the process quite a bit because they want their villain of the piece to conform to their expectations.

    So far as using taxpayers money there's lots of examples I can think of, I actually read and was broadly sympathetic with the books about government waste produced by the taxpayers alliance in the UK but surprise, surprise they stopped being produced after the conservatives where elected and the group itself is little more than a front organisation aimed at permeating society with their anti-tax philosophising. There's no logical reason why smaller, cheaper government would be better government.

  10. #20
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    The Royal Family costs about £36.7m per year.
    We pay no money to the Sovereign of Britain. And we pay no money to the Sovereign of Australia.

Similar Threads

  1. USA Feds to collect DNA from every person they arrest
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-21-2008, 01:41 AM
  2. Intelligent Forums/Internet Homes to Suck Information From?
    By Usehername in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-03-2008, 02:04 AM
  3. MBTI relationship to Personality Adaptations from TA
    By Silk in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-18-2007, 03:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO