User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 26

  1. #1
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    Prince George and Common Decency

    Prince George is born.

    So the constitutional monarchy is stable for four generations.

    When they asked us in 1999 whether we wanted to remain a constitutional monarchy or a republic, all except one small territory chose the monarch.

    The republicans keep telling us that a republic is inevitable, but it has been inevitable for such a long time, it seems it will always be inevitable.

    And this is as it should be, for the very purpose, the raison d'être, of liberal democracy is the limitation of power. And the monarch limits the power of politicians.

    Politicians intuitively want to maximise power and liberal democracy counter-intuitively limits power. So liberal democracy lives in creative tension between the desires of politicians and our decision to limit power in the name of common decency.

  2. #2
    girl with a pretty smile Honor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    3w2 so
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    An interesting analysis.

  3. #3
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    And this is as it should be, for the very purpose, the raison d'être, of liberal democracy is the limitation of power. And the monarch limits the power of politicians.
    So, you're claiming that monarchy is not an anachronism, but is essential for liberal democracy? Because the monarchs "limit the power" of the politicians?

    I apologize for being ignorant and not growing up in the commonwealth, but it's my understanding that the monarchs no longer have the ability to limit anyone's power. They don't actually do anything, they are simply celebrities on coins.

    Of course, admitting that would interfere with your sense of nationalism, so you need to convenience yourself that it somehow guarantees freedom.

    For the monarchs to "limit the power" of politicians, they would have to actually have some kind of power of their own. The monarchy of the commonwealth is nothing more than glitzy theater to provide distractions for people who'd rather not think about other things. Some people are impressed by bullshit fairytale weddings between millionaire heiress "commoners" and royalty; they find it inspiring for some damn fool reason.

    Including, it seems, a lot of Americans. Americans, oddly enough, ( and to this American's dismay) love the royal family, so it seems you have more in common with us than you might think.

    I assure you, I will not be able to buy groceries for the next two years without seeing pictures of this ugly royal baby. The only thing that's different between this ugly baby and all the other ugly babies is that the other ugly babies didn't pop out of a vagina that was touched by the sperm of a guy that might end up on a coin some day and might end up being the Anglican ''pope". (Can't forget that pillar of liberal democracy, either. )

    Even as pageantry, the royal family is lacking. Someone was going on about how Harry Potter the golden easel looked, but I can see the same damn thing outside of hipster bars in Olde City Philadelphia. For me to buy the "pageantry'" argument, at the very least they would have to wear interesting costumes. Fuck this shit about it being "quaint" or "uncomfortable." Sorry, you can't call yourself a prince if you don't wear a crown out in public. Princes do not wear three piece suits, at least if they want to convince me that they're different or more important than any other rich dude.

    I also don't doubt that a lot of people in Australia prefer to be a constitutional monarchy, but that just means that a lot of people in Australia are impressed by shiny things and vague appeals to tradition.

    There are many dumb things about America, but I'd say one of our better ideas was getting rid of the concept of a royal family. It's a shame that so many people seem to want it back.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  4. #4
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545
    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    So, you're claiming that monarchy is not an anachronism, but is essential for liberal democracy? Because the monarchs "limit the power" of the politicians?
    Actually in Oz we don't have a monarch except on very rare occasions. What we do have is a Governor General who is a representative of the Queen.

    Nor do we have an aristocracy or Royal Honours.

    Imagine if we didn't have the Governor General representing the Queen - we would have a politician as our Head of State, and Commander-in-Chief, as they do in the USA.

    So our Governor General, Quentin Alice Louise Bryce AC CVO, keeps a politician out of the post with the highest status.

    And our Governor General keeps a politician out of the post of Commander-in-Chief.

    No one could deny this limits the power of politicians.

  5. #5
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,545

    The King's Law and the Merchantile State

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    one of our better ideas was getting rid of the concept of a royal family.
    C'mon, you had a bourgeois revolution against lawful authority, against the King's Law.

    And the result of your bourgeois revolution is a successful merchantile State.

    Religion is bent in the service of the merchantile State.
    The military is bent in the service of the merchantile State.
    Education is bent in th service of the merchantile State.
    And monetary policy is bent in the service of the merchantile State.

    Even the people are bent in the service of the merchantile State.

    In fact your merchantile State is so successful you own, control and print the Reserve Currency of the World. And this is the aim of any merchantile State.

    You refused to bend you knee to the King's Law and now you must bend your knee to the merchantile State.

  6. #6
    girl with a pretty smile Honor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    3w2 so
    Posts
    1,671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    So, you're claiming that monarchy is not an anachronism, but is essential for liberal democracy? Because the monarchs "limit the power" of the politicians?

    I apologize for being ignorant and not growing up in the commonwealth, but it's my understanding that the monarchs no longer have the ability to limit anyone's power. They don't actually do anything, they are simply celebrities on coins.

    Of course, admitting that would interfere with your sense of nationalism, so you need to convenience yourself that it somehow guarantees freedom.

    For the monarchs to "limit the power" of politicians, they would have to actually have some kind of power of their own. The monarchy of the commonwealth is nothing more than glitzy theater to provide distractions for people who'd rather not think about other things. Some people are impressed by bullshit fairytale weddings between millionaire heiress "commoners" and royalty; they find it inspiring for some damn fool reason.

    Including, it seems, a lot of Americans. Americans, oddly enough, ( and to this American's dismay) love the royal family, so it seems you have more in common with us than you might think.

    I assure you, I will not be able to buy groceries for the next two years without seeing pictures of this ugly royal baby. The only thing that's different between this ugly baby and all the other ugly babies is that the other ugly babies didn't pop out of a vagina that was touched by the sperm of a guy that might end up on a coin some day and might end up being the Anglican ''pope". (Can't forget that pillar of liberal democracy, either. )

    Even as pageantry, the royal family is lacking. Someone was going on about how Harry Potter the golden easel looked, but I can see the same damn thing outside of hipster bars in Olde City Philadelphia. For me to buy the "pageantry'" argument, at the very least they would have to wear interesting costumes. Fuck this shit about it being "quaint" or "uncomfortable." Sorry, you can't call yourself a prince if you don't wear a crown out in public. Princes do not wear three piece suits, at least if they want to convince me that they're different or more important than any other rich dude.

    I also don't doubt that a lot of people in Australia prefer to be a constitutional monarchy, but that just means that a lot of people in Australia are impressed by shiny things and vague appeals to tradition.

    There are many dumb things about America, but I'd say one of our better ideas was getting rid of the concept of a royal family. It's a shame that so many people seem to want it back.
    Dude, I've read some of your posts before, and you have some crazy assumptions. First of all, people will watch and get absorbed in whatever is on TV when they are bored or need a distraction from their lives. That certainly doesn't mean that we "like" the royal family or god forbid, want it back.

    Second of all, I didn't grow up in "the commonwealth" either, but I know enough about British politics to know that the Royal Family has enough money and status that they absolutely do wield power, though I might disagree with the OP's premise that they're using that power to limit that of politicians'. Perhaps you need to revamp your definition of what it means to be powerful. If you can sway the public as much as the royals can (every item of clothing that the brunette has worn since marrying the prince has sold out globally the next day, for one thing; she's driven sales enormously in the fashion industry), I'd keep an eye on you.

    I heard on CNN that the Queen gave them a reprieve of two to three years after the wedding during which they just strut around in designer clothing, attending social events, but that pretty soon, they'll become much more involved in political work. They've already done a bit, meeting with President Obama and Michelle Obama. I'm curious to see what affect they will have on global politics in the future...

    I also think you were the one who suggested it was ironic that I felt sorry for Kate having photographers camped out of the hospital while posting that I was excited to see whether the royal baby was a boy or a girl. *eyeroll* Because Kate is reading this forum and is going to be pressured by what's said at Typology Central in the same way that she would be the photographers camped outside of her hospital. Don't overestimate the power of your analysis. It's not high.

  7. #7
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    PORG
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Actually in Oz we don't have a monarch except on very rare occasions. What we do have is a Governor General who is a representative of the Queen.

    Nor do we have an aristocracy or Royal Honours.

    Imagine if we didn't have the Governor General representing the Queen - we would have a politician as our Head of State, and Commander-in-Chief, as they do in the USA.

    So our Governor General, Quentin Alice Louise Bryce AC CVO, keeps a politician out of the post with the highest status.

    And our Governor General keeps a politician out of the post of Commander-in-Chief.

    No one could deny this limits the power of politicians.
    What does the Governor General actually do, though? And isn't the Queen on your money? I know the Queen is on Canadian coins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    C'mon, you had a bourgeois revolution against lawful authority, against the King's Law.
    I don't doubt that it was a bourgeois revolution, and I'm well aware of the fact that most, if not all of the leaders of the revolution were quite wealthy.

    But power only exists where we believe does it.



    You refused to bend you knee to the King's Law and now you must bend your knee to the merchantile State.
    While I don't like either, I find one less annoying, although it is interesting when you consider that money is an agreed-upon fiction much like royalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Honor View Post
    Dude, I've read some of your posts before, and you have some crazy assumptions. First of all, people will watch and get absorbed in whatever is on TV when they are bored or need a distraction from their lives. That certainly doesn't mean that we "like" the royal family or god forbid, want it back.
    I can't figure out why people watch it so much, so I figure people must yearn for it on some level, or else they wouldn't care.

    Second of all, I didn't grow up in "the commonwealth" either, but I know enough about British politics to know that the Royal Family has enough money and status that they absolutely do wield power, though I might disagree with the OP's premise that they're using that power to limit that of politicians'. Perhaps you need to revamp your definition of what it means to be powerful. If you can sway the public as much as the royals can (every item of clothing that the brunette has worn since marrying the prince has sold out globally the next day, for one thing; she's driven sales enormously in the fashion industry), I'd keep an eye on you.
    This is power in the sense that Hollywood celebrities have power. It's not political power. Celebrities on coins.

    I heard on CNN that the Queen gave them a reprieve of two to three years after the wedding during which they just strut around in designer clothing, attending social events, but that pretty soon, they'll become much more involved in political work. They've already done a bit, meeting with President Obama and Michelle Obama. I'm curious to see what affect they will have on global politics in the future...
    Probably the same effect Charles has had: none.

    Perhaps they will have slightly more, once William reigns, but that's a long way off.


    I also think you were the one who suggested it was ironic that I felt sorry for Kate having photographers camped out of the hospital while posting that I was excited to see whether the royal baby was a boy or a girl.
    I don't think I did. I think the only thing I posted in that thread was the nuanced opinion of "FUCK THE ROYAL BABY."

    I think I posted one other short post, but I don't think I ever commented on that, because I don't even remember you saying that.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  8. #8
    Senior Member JivinJeffJones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,698

    Default

    Personally I think the view of most Australians have is that our government already functions without interference from the monarchy, and so the only reason to become a republic would be to give one of our politicians more glory. Not really more power, just more glory. And we don't like our politicians, as a group. We already find such glory as they have obnoxious without making ostentatious, unnecessary changes designed to give them a little bit more.

    Plus, look at the disaster that ensued when we decided to overthrow "God Save The Queen" and replace it with an anthem of our own choosing. We got an anthem of our own choosing.

  9. #9
    Warflower Nijntje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    CRZY
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,225

    Default

    Our anthem is horrendous.

    And people only know the first bloody verse. We can't be trusted to choose things for ourselves.

    We should have gone with 'Waltzing Matilda'.

    Terrible things happen to good people every day.
    Consequentially, I am not one of the good people.
    I am one of the terrible things.
    .



    Conclusion: Dinosaurs


  10. #10
    Senior Member Bamboo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    XXFP
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    I once met an Australian who seemed to believe that you couldn't really "make it" in Australia unless you left Australia for a couple years and worked somewhere else to build your resume.

    He seemed to be impressed by the fact that the United States had forcibly declared it's independence while Australia broke away slowly from the crown with lots and lots of paperwork.

    Ironically, he identified as a pacifist.

    I didn't really know what to make of it.


    (Coincidently, I just turned on the radio and NASCAR is on, yes, NASCAR on the radio - they're doing the national anthem now)
    Don't know how much it'll bend til it breaks.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Commonalities/differences between ENFP and ENFJ
    By proteanmix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-23-2015, 02:35 PM
  2. Sex, Misery and Common Unhappiness
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-15-2011, 01:44 AM
  3. [SJ] SJ's and common ailments
    By Saslou in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-17-2009, 03:23 PM
  4. Common sense - what is it and who has it?
    By JivinJeffJones in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 12:21 AM
  5. Law and Order: SVU - Dr. George Huang
    By wedekit in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 03:30 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