Because according to my principles, I object to monarchy insofar as a monarch makes public policy decisions without accountability to the citizens of his country and thus lacks a barrier against causing harm to those people. The Queen of England doesn't do this. Therefore, I have no reason to object to the Queen of England.
I object to figurehead monarchy insofar as a monarch receives public money without accountability or merit.
I think you have too narrowly defined your possible objections to monarchy, and now that you are dealing with a different system, a taxpayer funded figurehead monarch, you are blind to other possible issues.
Your principles must somehow allow the possibility for a thing to be wrong even when it causes no harm. I'd be interested to hear how.
The principle that all men are created equal, especially in the eyes of the government, means that raising an individual up to a position of taxpayer funded superiority is wrong. I object to the idea of being obligated to fund the luxurious life of a family based on their heritage. Even if I get a return on my investment, being forced into an investment of a certain family because of their heritage is an abuse of the governments power of taxation. A monarchy has no place in a modern government based on principles of absolute equality of each man in the eyes of the law.
Take an example of this from American society. There are those who believe that it is absolutely not the governments place to invest in private businesses. So what happens when the government invests in, say, a solar panel company and it actually succeeds? Are the views of those people who were against it illegitimate since no harm came to anyone? I would argue that their principles still stand. The conservative principle that the government should not be involved in the private market is valid even if the government happens to be succeeding in the market. Likewise the enlightenment/democratic principle that heritage does not give merit is also valid. The government should not be involved in funding luxurious lives for certain families based on their bloodline. It is not the place of the government to make that investment, and it remains antithetical to any society which values equality.
You're right. I'm sure that Royal Jubilee did absolutely nothing to influence the rate of tourism in England.
That is not long term tourism. Other European countries still get tourism without royalty. The main draw is the place, not the royals.
It has been guaranteed, and why is it wrong? It can't be wrong because it's wrong, that's a circular argument.
What on earth are you talking about? I didn't say it is wrong because it is wrong, I said that even if you can make money from monarchy I still disagree that idea of hereditary rule is legitimate or moral. I'm saying that if we could make money off of giving the Kardashians family taxpayer money I would still disagree with that practice based on my principles.
That was the most dubious cherry picking and straw manning of a post of mine that I have seen in a while.
It applies here, though, because "I like it!" should be all the reinforcement the system in question needs to be considered valid.
What on earth? Why are monarchies suddenly immune from logical fallacies in your view? "I like it" is not a valid reason. You may have real reasons that cause you to like it, but those are the reasons that must be debated.
Could I just say "I like it!" in the Soviet Union as justification for communism? No.
Fixed that for you unless you are claiming the UK, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, Norway and several others are not Western Societies.
Don't edit my posts in your quotes.
Also you are trying to compare the modern situation to one over 2 centuries ago where then monarch was of Dubious sanity?? Seriously should we judge you by the actions you were taking in the same time period and ignore everything else??
Is that what they teach you over there?
American's rebelled against the entire idea of hereditary rule, not just a single ruler.
Guess your last sentence spells it out though. You have bought the myth of American Exceptional-ism hook line and sinker so if any one has a different way of doing things it is automatically wrong and must be change.
Hereditary rule is wrong. I'm not telling you your society must change, only that it is wrong. This has nothing to do with American exceptionalism, it is a philosophical debate over the merits of monarchical systems. Clearly you are letting anti-American bigotry cloud your judgment here because I said nothing about American exceptionalism.
Unfortunately News flash as I said earlier just because it works in America does not mean it will work equally well else where and Rabid American insistence that it will just annoys people outside of your borders.
This isn't an issue of what works in America. This is about the debate we settled over 200 years ago that hereditary rule is antithetical to a post enlightenment society.
I'm not sure if you realize this, but even though the Royal Family is figureheads right now, the entire British Government's power is still derived from them. The monarchy never went away - the Queen or King is still head of state and still has legal authority over various things. The British people never overthrew them, only strictly limited their power. As such, they are still legitimate monarchs, not just 'some family'.
That is the whole point. They ARE just "some family" because we as a western society realize that power (even the power to be a tax payer funded figurehead) should not derive from heritage.
Ok we have decided to go dressed up in Star Trek uniforms. I know, its not really clever or anything but it should still be fun so don't judge me too harshly.
So question is, which costume should I buy? They are SO MANY out there. I don't want one of the crappy shirts with a printed on badge.
Never mind that the Real Deal here is the continued use of this image in the present day by contemporary people. That is something you can't try to deflect by saying how extremely long ago it was and how much we have lost contact with that culture (lmao).
Of course we still use it, it is an iconic photo that shows the joy of that moment. Maybe if you saved your predictable outrage for things other than criticism of soldiers who just found out the war was over we would treat it more seriously.
The argument that each taxpayer pays a small amount for the Royal family is stupid. The point is that giving taxpayer money to people for a life of luxury simply because of what family they belong to is absurd. We dealt with this issue over 200 years ago in America. If anyone needs reasons why monarchy is bad, go read some stuff from back then.
First, Britain would still have tourism without royals. The historical sites will not disappear. Second, even if somehow it could be guaranteed that a system like this would make money for the state, it is still wrong.
If you proposed that the Kardashians be given $0.50 from each taxpayer in order to fund their luxurious life, but don't worry somehow it will actually make us money in the end, I would STILL be against it. Like was said before, monarchy is antithetical to the values of western society. I'm glad that I don't live in Britain, because I think the idea of one penny going to fund a monarchy would be too enraging.
It is clear what the Romney strategy is now. Completely misrepresent his positions in order to make himself seem more moderate than he is. The question is whether people are dumb enough to fall for it.
I'm personally still more offended by the rampant defacement of Ron Paul materials during Primary season - by other Republicans.
I'm personally more offended by the rampant vandalism of my campus by Ron Paul supporters putting stickers everywhere where they couldn't be removed and hanging up papers where they were difficult to reach and where they didn't belong, and clogging up every blackboard with messages about Ron Paul.
Maybe the supporters should stop littering, vandalizing, and just generally annoying everyone with their rabid support of Ron Paul.
I object to figurehead monarchy insofar as a monarch receives public money without accountability or merit.
I think you have too narrowly defined your possible objections to monarchy, and now that you are dealing with a different system, a taxpayer funded figurehead monarch, you are blind to other possible issues.
The principle that all men are created equal, especially in the eyes of the government, means that raising an individual up to a position of taxpayer funded superiority is wrong. I object to the idea of being obligated to fund the luxurious life of a family based on their heritage. Even if I get a return on my investment, being forced into an investment of a certain family because of their heritage is an abuse of the governments power of taxation. A monarchy has no place in a modern government based on principles of absolute equality of each man in the eyes of the law.
Take an example of this from American society. There are those who believe that it is absolutely not the governments place to invest in private businesses. So what happens when the government invests in, say, a solar panel company and it actually succeeds? Are the views of those people who were against it illegitimate since no harm came to anyone? I would argue that their principles still stand. The conservative principle that the government should not be involved in the private market is valid even if the government happens to be succeeding in the market. Likewise the enlightenment/democratic principle that heritage does not give merit is also valid. The government should not be involved in funding luxurious lives for certain families based on their bloodline. It is not the place of the government to make that investment, and it remains antithetical to any society which values equality.
That is not long term tourism. Other European countries still get tourism without royalty. The main draw is the place, not the royals.
What on earth are you talking about? I didn't say it is wrong because it is wrong, I said that even if you can make money from monarchy I still disagree that idea of hereditary rule is legitimate or moral. I'm saying that if we could make money off of giving the Kardashians family taxpayer money I would still disagree with that practice based on my principles.
That was the most dubious cherry picking and straw manning of a post of mine that I have seen in a while.
What on earth? Why are monarchies suddenly immune from logical fallacies in your view? "I like it" is not a valid reason. You may have real reasons that cause you to like it, but those are the reasons that must be debated.
Could I just say "I like it!" in the Soviet Union as justification for communism? No.
I would hardly call obtaining land through a tyrannical system of monarchy for hundreds of years "owning" it.
Don't edit my posts in your quotes.
Is that what they teach you over there?
American's rebelled against the entire idea of hereditary rule, not just a single ruler.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/commonsense/text.html
Read that.
Hereditary rule is wrong. I'm not telling you your society must change, only that it is wrong. This has nothing to do with American exceptionalism, it is a philosophical debate over the merits of monarchical systems. Clearly you are letting anti-American bigotry cloud your judgment here because I said nothing about American exceptionalism.
This isn't an issue of what works in America. This is about the debate we settled over 200 years ago that hereditary rule is antithetical to a post enlightenment society.
That is the whole point. They ARE just "some family" because we as a western society realize that power (even the power to be a tax payer funded figurehead) should not derive from heritage.
So question is, which costume should I buy? They are SO MANY out there. I don't want one of the crappy shirts with a printed on badge.
Of course we still use it, it is an iconic photo that shows the joy of that moment. Maybe if you saved your predictable outrage for things other than criticism of soldiers who just found out the war was over we would treat it more seriously.
First, Britain would still have tourism without royals. The historical sites will not disappear. Second, even if somehow it could be guaranteed that a system like this would make money for the state, it is still wrong.
If you proposed that the Kardashians be given $0.50 from each taxpayer in order to fund their luxurious life, but don't worry somehow it will actually make us money in the end, I would STILL be against it. Like was said before, monarchy is antithetical to the values of western society. I'm glad that I don't live in Britain, because I think the idea of one penny going to fund a monarchy would be too enraging.
There is no way my girlfriend is strong enough to carry me. And I want to be the jetpack pilot obviously, so this may not be the best choice for us.
I'm personally more offended by the rampant vandalism of my campus by Ron Paul supporters putting stickers everywhere where they couldn't be removed and hanging up papers where they were difficult to reach and where they didn't belong, and clogging up every blackboard with messages about Ron Paul.
Maybe the supporters should stop littering, vandalizing, and just generally annoying everyone with their rabid support of Ron Paul.