Royalty

[Vyn]

Specifically, the hereditary right of family to rule over other people's lives. What say you all?

1. Brilliant, wish we had more of that in the world.

2. A relic of a bygone time, but brilliant at that time in order to prevent chaos and ensure the best for their subjects.

3. Shit now, shit then.

I didn't make this a poll, because there can obviously be more options and I'd rather see discussion about it. I have limited understanding of how folks in countries with a history of such things feel about it, because I was born, raised, and live in a country whose existence was a direct result of getting out from under that type of governance model.

As such, I'm pretty biased.

 

[Billy Underdog]

As someone living in a monarchy, this is my point of view:

First of all i'm against the idea of hereditary rulership. But seeing the alternatives around, they don't seem much better either.
Esp. as long as true communism still haven't been tested (the stuff Russia and others have been doing is dictatorship, the opposite of communism).
But i love the Norwegian royal family. We've got a head of state without any real power. Much better than a president who can run the country down the drains. Though ofcourse, our prime minister is pretty much in the same position as a president would be. Still, the king have the final say, so he can veto things that obviously is bad for the country.
But our royal family, esp. king Harald is a good symbol as the head of state, who gather the country with good values: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/king-harald-norway-diversity-speech

Now, ofcourse it probably helped alot that we chose our own king in 1905, a Danish prince with no aspirations to ever become a king, and we already had a democratic constitution since 1814 (one of the first along with, and highly inspired by the French and the U.S.Aian), which he was incredibly good at following, even supporting it, as was his son and grandson, the current king.

Watching our neighbours Sweden, i can see it could've been alot worse. A cocaine-ridden womanizer who doesn't give a damn about his peoples.
And there's others that's even worse.

Now, how Håkon will turn out in a couple of years only time will tell, but so far he've taken his position as the crown prince very seriously, and share the same values as his father, working for a better society for all.

[Sabbabbath]

No question:
3. Shit now, shit then.

Where I agree with Billy is that real communism (totally unlike the pseudo and horror versions we have seen) is needed.

To be sure, I don't think I want to really discuss that, I am already involving myself in too many too serious discussions on this forum because I am too passionate about far too many topics. I have to reduce the amount of discussion I am involved in, otherwise it's more work than fun. So I will leave it at these very short statements.

[Zzzptm]

Kingship is a big roll of the dice... do you get a ruler that can stand firmly against all comers, enemies from within and without, or do you get a craven, venal oaf that uses the state to feather his own bed?

The idea with elected governments is that they guarantee that an individual oaf's time in office is limited, but they themselves cannot guarantee that one oaf will not succeed another.

But, at the end of the day, a nation led by a monarch is judged by the actions of the monarch. A nation that can elect its own leaders is judged by the actions of the people. Therefore, elected governments allow for better dilution of bad karma. The people as a whole have to be possessed of terrible judgment for an elected government to implode into a nightmare scenario. In a monarchy, the nightmares can begin with the actions of just one person.

[Typhon]

Number 3.

The heck with communism.

(A side question for Billy: What is this "U.S.Aian" stuff you keep using?)

[Billy Underdog]

The heck with communism.

Only means that you don't know what it is...

(A side question for Billy: What is this "U.S.Aian" stuff you keep using?)

A huge argument we had on BSO, mainly me and Charg. U.S.A is a country, America is a continent. Well, two... It's just that you couldn't come up with a real name for your country.

(and now that Pandoras box was opened again...)

[Typhon]

Of course I know what communism is.  I'll take capitalism all the way!

The continent is called North America.  The country is called the United States.  So what's the problem?   

[Billy Underdog]

Of course I know what communism is.  I'll take capitalism all the way!

Which means you don't know what it is. What we're doing here are in many ways communism.

The continent is called North America.  The country is called the United States.  So what's the problem?   

A person from Canada or Argentina is also an American, just like a person from Germany, Italy or Finland are European. Hence a person from the country U.S.A must be called U.S.Aian to differ hem (Swedish gender neutrality) from other Americans.

I just can't be arsed to do this whole discussion again, so just read pgs 54 & 55 here: https://www.black-sabbath.com/vb/showthread.php?43969-Random-Thought-Thread&p=441139&viewfull=1#post441139

Edit: browsing those pages it's pretty funny to see how OCD try to team up and agree with you, Charg
Ahhhh, distant memories...   

[Sabbabbath]

The continent is called North America.  The country is called the United States.  So what's the problem?   

Couldn't agree more. Anyway, some people were very confident that America = USA, and that e.g. Mexicans were not Americans.

EDIT: Ah, I see Billy replied quicker than me. 

[KiloDeltaCharlie]

Being a Brit we obviously have a Royal family of some note. But, it's not a family with any real power, there are some ceremonial duties they undertake, but they have no say in the creation of laws and policies.

My view point is that as long as their role is ceremonial and they bring in lots of tourists with lots of money... I'm fine with it.

[Typhon]

The continent is called North America.  The country is called the United States.  So what's the problem?   

A person from Canada or Argentina is also an American, just like a person from Germany, Italy or Finland are European. Hence a person from the country U.S.A must be called U.S.Aian to differ hem (Swedish gender neutrality) from other Americans.

I just can't be arsed to do this whole discussion again, so just read pgs 54 & 55 here: https://www.black-sabbath.com/vb/showthread.php?43969-Random-Thought-Thread&p=441139&viewfull=1#post441139

Okay I read it.  Here is the way it works.  A person from Canada is a Canadian, a person from Mexico is a Mexican, a person from the U.S. is an American.  Collectively, the 3 are North Americans.  Just as those from the countries in the south are South Americans, and those from the countries between the north and south are Central Americans.  But, only United States citizens are correctly called Americans.

[Billy Underdog]

Yes, they're Americans...

[Sabbabbath]

Yes, they're Americans...

LOL, is that your effort to not start the whole discussion again? 

[Billy Underdog]

LOL, is that your effort to not start the whole discussion again? 

No, i was just agreeing...

[Billy Underdog]

I have to add that i consider it a fact that the best form of government is benign dictatorship. It's just sad that because of human nature that's almost impossible. Out of the 7,6 billion people on this planet there's one suitable for the position: me...