British People: Monarch or No?

[Kirran]

No. Bring on the Republic!

We can put this on the platform of our movement. Snowflake movement or whatever.

 

[Laika]

We can put this on the platform of our movement. Snowflake movement or whatever.

It is time one got a real job among the people.

 

[Kirran]

It is time for one got a real job among the people.

Haha!

Remember the Beast of Bolsover's urging Prince Philip to open a kebab shop in North London?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Yeah, that does sound massively impractical. I'm not aware of any ideology which actually advocates this.

It is the definition of an absolute democracy though. But I agree, with you here, anarchism would be much more tenable.

But I am not sure we should look to this time as an example for modern governance.

Yeah, there would be far to much resistance to even the idea of a monarchy to implement it in a meaningful way.

I guess the crux of the dispute here, is that whether a an individual who is part of the people (i.e democratically elected) is better at ruling/governing a country than an individual whose sole life purpose has been leading up to the role (i.e a monarch).

Who stops them? The entire point of an absolute monarch is that they're not beholden to the people.

Yeah, that's why I don't support an absolute monarchy. I see no, or very little problem with UK's (and its colonies) monarchy system (constitutional one).

You know what kind of head of state would respond even better to the outcry of the people, and have a stake in responding to their satisfaction? An elected one

I actually disagree here ahah . Who says monarchs are unable to sympathize with the needs of the people? I mean that is their job right? I think monarchs are much better than politicians as a general principle in governing a society. They are raised from birth with the role in mind (to rule), they have a lifetime of training before heading into the role, as well as experience for carrying out state duties up until that point, and compared to a politician who has basically won a popularity contest based off what they can promise rather than their actual merits, a monarch seems to me to be more reliable. Monarchs are also above petty party politics and do not have to maintain such a platform. From their onset, they are the cultural fathers and mothers of the society and thus we can argue that they have a better claim to govern the population then a elected politician from a party who rarely wins great deal more than 50% of an electorate. Another argument for a monarchy is the sense of stability and unity it often provides, compared to an ever changing democratically elected government.

Actually Thomas Aquinus's arguments here, are of particular interest in this regard (some ideas are outdated, others can apply equally to democracy, but chapter 7 is really nice. He basically argues that there are times when if Monarch, if she becomes a tyrant, can be disposed of).

Although I do have some difficulty regarding issues such as - democratic means are not recommended for deciding on issues of minority rights. Devolution eventually solves such dilemmas.

I'm in agreement here.

So do the 500,000 LGBT Ugandans whose sexual expression would be criminalised and punished with life imprisonment mean that the Ugandan government lacks a mandate for not protecting their basic and fundamental rights?

As for 2, does one of the two bodies have legitimacy? Has Assad's government lost a legitimacy it once had?

So the Tibetan government-in-exile has no mandate?

I would answer yes to some and no to some of these, with various qualifications.

We need to argue and define what common life is here. Because it differs in every society, changing with its general cultural norms and values. If free and consensual sexual expression is a norm of common life in Ugandan society, then the Ugandan government does lack a mandate, for failure to preserve that common life. If it doesn't them, then it does have a mandate (although we may deem its laws Injust.). But injustice and mandate are two different concerns. The only other way is to argue that LGBT expression is somehow different to heterosexual expression (which can be done, but it would be very difficult in this day and age).

 

[Laika]

Haha!

Remember the Beast of Bolsover's urging Prince Philip to open a kebab shop in North London?

Lol, I don't actually. I just always thought it was weird how tories hate people living on benifits on council estates and didn't include the queen.

But she did military service in world war II and thats pretty ****** for a grandma.

Elizabeth in the army: When the Queen was a truck mechanic

 

[Kirran]

It is the definition of an absolute democracy though. But I agree, with you here, anarchism would be much more tenable.

I'd say an anarchist society better fits the definition of an absolute democracy. Statism is inherently undemocratic.

Yeah, there would be far to much resistance to even the idea of a monarchy to implement it in a meaningful way.

I guess the crux of the dispute here, is that whether a an individual who is part of the people (i.e democratically elected) is better at ruling/governing a country than an individual whose sole life purpose has been leading up to the role (i.e a monarch).

In what way is someone born to X family not 'part of the people' though? What's so special about them, inherently?

Yeah, that's why I don't support an absolute monarchy. I see no, or very little problem with UK's (and its colonies) monarchy system (constitutional one).

Fair enough so. I think it's certainly preferable.

I actually disagree here ahah . Who says monarchs are unable to sympathize with the needs of the people? I mean that is their job right? I think monarchs are much better than politicians as a general principle in governing a society. They are raised from birth with the role in mind (to rule), they have a lifetime of training before heading into the role, as well as experience for carrying out state duties up until that point, and compared to a politician who has basically won a popularity contest based off what they can promise rather than their actual merits, a monarch seems to me to be more reliable. Monarchs are also above petty party politics and do not have to maintain such a platform. From their onset, they are the cultural fathers and mothers of the society and thus we can argue that they have a better claim to govern the population then a elected politician from a party who rarely wins great deal more than 50% of an electorate. Another argument for a monarchy is the sense of stability and unity it often provides, compared to an ever changing democratically elected government.

Actually Thomas Aquinus's arguments here, are of particular interest in this regard (some ideas are outdated, others can apply equally to democracy, but chapter 7 is really nice. He basically argues that there are times when if Monarch, if she becomes a tyrant, can be disposed of).

It's not that they're unable, but they are far less required to. You are trusting the system and the good nature of a monarch. If an elected leader doesn't do what the people want, you can get rid of them! A monarch doesn't have that pressure.

Not that I disagree with many of your arguments, but I think a lot of them are just as good at being general criticisms of single leaders and centralised governance.

We need to argue and define what common life is here. Because it differs in every society, changing with its general cultural norms and values. If free and consensual sexual expression is a norm of common life in Ugandan society, then the Ugandan government does lack a mandate, for failure to preserve that common life. If it doesn't them, then it does have a mandate (although we may deem its laws Injust.). But injustice and mandate are two different concerns. The only other way is to argue that LGBT expression is somehow different to heterosexual expression (which can be done, but it would be very difficult in this day and age).

So basic rights differ by culture? You said if a state fails to uphold the basic and fundamental rights of its people then it lost its claim to sovereignty.

Let's look at the example of having sex with someone of the same sex. That's what is illegal there.

 

[Kirran]

Lol, I don't actually. I just always thought it was weird how tories hate people living on benifits on council estates and didn't include the queen.

But she did military service in world war II and thats pretty ****** for a grandma.

Elizabeth in the army: When the Queen was a truck mechanic

 

[निताइ dasa]

So basic rights differ by culture? You said if a state fails to uphold the basic and fundamental rights of its people then it lost its claim to sovereignty.

No common life differs from culture to culture. Mandate is broken, when states disrupts basic rights or no longer protects common life.


As for sex with the same sex, its depends how we argue it. Some people would argue that a right for sexual freedom is not a basic human right. Others would argue that sexual freedom is a basic human right and to restrict it is to restrict an individual's autonomy (i.e you are stopping an individuals control of their body without good reason). And of course when we talk about 'good reason', we enter into another discussion of value, and what is a "good reason" to stop or restrict someone autonomy. Usually a 'good reason' to restrict autonomy, is when the autonomy is being used to disrupt another right. Like a government can restrict my autonomy to punch other people, because that would mean I'm disrupting their autonomy. (hopefully you get the point)

If in a society, sexuality is something that is only there the purpose of procreation not recreation, then we would make an argument. But like I said, in this day and age this is generally not the case. I'm not sure about Ugandan society culture though.

In what way is someone born to X family not 'part of the people' though? What's so special about them, inherently?

Again the concept of common life. They (monarchs) are born in a position of great privilege by birth that is not given to the other people. Hence why, in one way, I would argue that they are not part of the people (nor are they the governed, but rather the governers). Being born in a certain family can very well externally (not inherently) place one in a better position than others.

 

[Kirran]

No common life differs from culture to culture. Mandate is broken, when states disrupts basic rights or no longer protects common life.

I am somewhat skeptical on this common life concept. But as we're basically having a discussion within statism, I am somewhat skeptical of most of our conversation's underpinnings.

So disrupting basic rights is still included - what would you include?

As for sex with the same sex, its depends how we argue it. Some people would argue that a right for sexual freedom is not a basic human right. Others would argue that sexual freedom is a basic human right and to restrict it is to restrict an individual's autonomy (i.e you are stopping an individuals control of their body without good reason). And of course when we talk about 'good reason', we enter into another discussion of value, and what is a "good reason" to stop or restrict someone autonomy. Usually a 'good reason' to restrict autonomy, is when the autonomy is being used to disrupt another right. Like a government can restrict my autonomy to punch other people, because that would mean I'm disrupting their autonomy. (hopefully you get the point)

To be honest I'd say marriage equality is even a basic human right.

I understand your autonomy argument, I think it stands quite well.

If in a society, sexuality is something that is only there the purpose of procreation not recreation, then we would make an argument. But like I said, in this day and age this is generally not the case. I'm not sure about Ugandan society culture though.

In what society has that ever been the case, do you know?

As for Ugandan culture - it is a society of many cultures, bringing us more problem r.e. common life!

Again the concept of common life. They (monarchs) are born in a position of great privilege by birth that is not given to the other people. Hence why, in one way, I would argue that they are not part of the people (nor are they the governed, but rather the governers). Being born in a certain family can very well externally (not inherently) place one in a better position than others.

So you'd include the working and middle classes, but would you include the rich? Their common life is different. Do you include ethnic minorities, immigrants?

And do you find a problem with accepting the granting of privilege to people as a result of their birth inandof itself, at all?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is time one got a real job among the people.

I'd be fine with allowing her to retire with a reasonable pension and ending the office of monarch with her.

I have some sympathy for her: even though the citizens of Britain and the Commonwealth realms had no say in her being our head of state, she wasn't exactly given a choice in the matter either.

 

[निताइ dasa]

So disrupting basic rights is still included - what would you include?

Do you mean "what basic rights would I include?"

For me there are only two basic rights, autonomy and its sub clauses (freedom of thought, association, etc) and right of life and its sub-clauses (food, water shelter).

To be honest I'd say marriage equality is even a basic human right.

Hmm, for me marriage is not a basic right. A basic right would be right of sexual freedom (barring a "good reason") but right of marriage is not basic. Rather it is sort of a legal privilege (similiar to "right" to vote).

In what society has that ever been the case, do you know?

Many cultures in the past (Buddhist cultures, certain Vedic ones, even rigid Catholic ones) have seen sex as more of a procreational tool than a recreational one and hence their laws are based around that principle.

common life concept

Common life is sorta hard to define, so I'll try and put it in the words of the philosopher who originally coined it (Taken from his book Just and Unjust wars):

"The rights of states rest on the consent of their members. But this is consent of a special sort. State rights are not constituted through a series of transfers from individual men and women to the sovereign or through a series of exchanges among individuals. What actually happens is harder to describe. Over a long period of time, shared experiences and cooperative activity of many different kinds shape a common life. "Contract" is a metaphor for a process of association and mutuality, the ongoing character of which the state claims to protect against external encroachment. The protection extends not only to the lives and liberties of individuals but also to their shared life and liberty, the independent community they have made, for which individuals are sometimes sacrificed. The moral standing of any particular state depends upon the reality of the common life it protects and the extent to which the sacrifices required by that protection are willingly accepted and thought worthwhile. If no common life exists, or if the state doesn’t defend the common life that does exist, its own defense may have no moral justification. But most states do stand guard over the community of their citizens, at least to some degree: that is why we assume the justice of their defensive wars. And given a genuine "contract," it makes sense to say that territorial integrity and political sovereignty can be defended in exactly the same way as individual life and liberty"

So you'd include the working and middle classes, but would you include the rich? Their common life is different. Do you include ethnic minorities, immigrants?

And do you find a problem with accepting the granting of privilege to people as a result of their birth inandof itself, at all?

No, my point is that Monarchy are a tier above the people because they are not the governed, but rather they are the governors. This privilege of being born in a monarch family means your whole life will be lived out in a very different way compared to the other people. The rich, middle class, and working class, I would argue participate in the same common life. They are generally bound by the same laws, and are given equal legal protections. A Monarch however is given additional legal privileges that are not awarded to other classes. The line does get blurry here I admit.

Do I find a problem with granting privilege based on birth? My answer would be: it depends.

I'll give the (traditional) Hindu answer. Generally, according to our Karma we are given a position in life/ Whether we are born in the house of a pauper, or a King is dependent on the previous Karma and thus in a way is deserved. That being said, we mustn't limit and restrict people solely on the basis on their birth as this leads to injustice. It would really depend on the instance in question. A birth in the house of a King or Queen is a result of great pious Karma and therefore I have no problem granting them the privilege to rule. However this is only a secondary factor. The primary factor is that the individual must have the necessary traits and skill to be a virtuous monarch.

 

[Kirran]

Do you mean "what basic rights would I include?"

For me there are only two basic rights, autonomy and its sub clauses (freedom of thought, association, etc) and right of life and its sub-clauses (food, water shelter).

That seems sensible.

Hmm, for me marriage is not a basic right. A basic right would be right of sexual freedom (barring a "good reason") but right of marriage is not basic. Rather it is sort of a legal privilege (similiar to "right" to vote).

I didn't say marriage though! I said marriage equality. I think that if there is no marriage, that's OK, but if there is then it's a basic right that it be provided to all equally.

Many cultures in the past (Buddhist cultures, certain Vedic ones, even rigid Catholic ones) have seen sex as more of a procreational tool than a recreational one and hence their laws are based around that principle.

I personally don't think that this was ever the case in the culture of the common people. Only in legal and philosophical thinking among elites. People have always acknowledged other roles to sex within a societal context.

Common life is sorta hard to define, so I'll try and put it in the words of the philosopher who originally coined it (Taken from his book Just and Unjust wars):

"The rights of states rest on the consent of their members. But this is consent of a special sort. State rights are not constituted through a series of transfers from individual men and women to the sovereign or through a series of exchanges among individuals. What actually happens is harder to describe. Over a long period of time, shared experiences and cooperative activity of many different kinds shape a common life. "Contract" is a metaphor for a process of association and mutuality, the ongoing character of which the state claims to protect against external encroachment. The protection extends not only to the lives and liberties of individuals but also to their shared life and liberty, the independent community they have made, for which individuals are sometimes sacrificed. The moral standing of any particular state depends upon the reality of the common life it protects and the extent to which the sacrifices required by that protection are willingly accepted and thought worthwhile. If no common life exists, or if the state doesn’t defend the common life that does exist, its own defense may have no moral justification. But most states do stand guard over the community of their citizens, at least to some degree: that is why we assume the justice of their defensive wars. And given a genuine "contract," it makes sense to say that territorial integrity and political sovereignty can be defended in exactly the same way as individual life and liberty"

'If no common life exists' - interesting. Under what criteria could one claim this?

I don't see how you can ever truly say a contract is genuine, in the sense it discusses here.

No, my point is that Monarchy are a tier above the people because they are not the governed, but rather they are the governors. This privilege of being born in a monarch family means your whole life will be lived out in a very different way compared to the other people. The rich, middle class, and working class, I would argue participate in the same common life. They are generally bound by the same laws, and are given equal legal protections. A Monarch however is given additional legal privileges that are not awarded to other classes. The line does get blurry here I admit.

Right, I see. Does the family of the monarch have a different common life? Before asking further questions, I'd like to confirm you mean this just in relation to absolute monarchies, innit?

Do I find a problem with granting privilege based on birth? My answer would be: it depends.

I'll give the (traditional) Hindu answer. Generally, according to our Karma we are given a position in life/ Whether we are born in the house of a pauper, or a King is dependent on the previous Karma and thus in a way is deserved. That being said, we mustn't limit and restrict people solely on the basis on their birth as this leads to injustice. It would really depend on the instance in question. A birth in the house of a King or Queen is a result of great pious Karma and therefore I have no problem granting them the privilege to rule. However this is only a secondary factor. The primary factor is that the individual must have the necessary traits and skill to be a virtuous monarch.

There've long been effectively anarchist trends within Indian society, but carrying on: I am reminded of when someone was asking Guru Sri Subramanium about why some people are born with disabilities and problems, and he said because they're dealing with their stored up karma, and they asked so OK, does that mean we shouldn't help them because they've got to deal with the karma, and he said no, it's your duty to help people, and their karma would have had them put in a birth where the problem could be dealt with. I feel much the same about social inequalities.

I would dispute the reward/punishment narrative surrounding the expression of karma. I wouldn't say it's a traditional view or a particular good one - we take the births we do to work out our karma, that's it. There's no reason to assume you're at a particular state of spiritual advancement just because you're born in a royal family.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Trump is aiming to be an Emperor.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I didn't say marriage though! I said marriage equality. I think that if there is no marriage, that's OK, but if there is then it's a basic right that it be provided to all equally.

Sure, but even if a thing such a marriage existed, I do not think it is a right admissible to all. It really depends on the purpose and intent of marriage and consistency in applying this.

I personally don't think that this was ever the case in the culture of the common people. Only in legal and philosophical thinking among elites. People have always acknowledged other roles to sex within a societal context.

I grant you that. I think, even within a culture we can have smaller subdivisions with their own norms.

'If no common life exists' - interesting. Under what criteria could one claim this?

I don't see how you can ever truly say a contract is genuine, in the sense it discusses here.

I'm guessing (from the definition) there are two ways where no common life would exist 1) a society hasn't existed for long enough for one to form 2) there are very little of no shared experiences or cooperative between citizens. But it seems highly unlikely.

Yeah, well this definition of sovereignty arose because Walzer wanted to universal definition to show why all states (whether democratic or communist or whatever) had powers of sovereignty. It seems to be a good enough definition for me.

Right, I see. Does the family of the monarch have a different common life? Before asking further questions, I'd like to confirm you mean this just in relation to absolute monarchies, innit?

Um, well i'm sorta of arguing for a absolute monarchy with limitations. I am willing to admit that monarch all powers provided there are certain restriction upon these powers (either by a document, or some tradition or ethic system). But for the purpose of this discussion, lets assume a good monarch in an absolute monarchy.

There've long been effectively anarchist trends within Indian society, but carrying on: I am reminded of when someone was asking Guru Sri Subramanium about why some people are born with disabilities and problems, and he said because they're dealing with their stored up karma, and they asked so OK, does that mean we shouldn't help them because they've got to deal with the karma, and he said no, it's your duty to help people, and their karma would have had them put in a birth where the problem could be dealt with. I feel much the same about social inequalities.

I would dispute the reward/punishment narrative surrounding the expression of karma. I wouldn't say it's a traditional view or a particular good one - we take the births we do to work out our karma, that's it. There's no reason to assume you're at a particular state of spiritual advancement just because you're born in a royal family.

Yeah there is no doubt many different opinions on this within Hinduism. The traditional opinion (of you know Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhavacharya and the ancient commentary of Vedanta) was that our Birth was actually a result of our Karma. That someone born in a Brahmin body was qualified to be a Brahman and so on. Its very clear in their works that this is the case. But later, I think as time moved on the views shifted and became more egalitarian. Birth actually became a very very minor factor and rather it was one's qualities that determined one's spiritual advancement. Our school called this the daiva varnahsrama (or classes based upon qualities not birth). I'm guessing this was mirrored by many of its contemporary schools too. We see during this time the rise of the Bhakti schools and the idea that everyone is eligible to perform worship of God. I personally support the latter system over the former, but Hindu scripture does claim that being born in a royal family is a result of great pious action and is a form of reward.

 

[Kirran]

Sure, but even if a thing such a marriage existed, I do not think it is a right admissible to all. It really depends on the purpose and intent of marriage and consistency in applying this.

You make interesting points here, but perhaps we should shelf this discussion as it'd wander away from the OP quite a bit.

I grant you that. I think, even within a culture we can have smaller subdivisions with their own norms.

Certainly! Societal divisions tend to be very fluid in practice, people don't easily fit boxes.

I'm guessing (from the definition) there are two ways where no common life would exist 1) a society hasn't existed for long enough for one to form 2) there are very little of no shared experiences or cooperative between citizens. But it seems highly unlikely.

Yeah, well this definition of sovereignty arose because Walzer wanted to universal definition to show why all states (whether democratic or communist or whatever) had powers of sovereignty. It seems to be a good enough definition for me.

Interesting. Considering it, I think this way of looking at this is overly theoretical. I think Walzer is overly divorcing theory from the practical situations on the ground. A dictatorial state doesn't have sovereignty over people because of such explanations of why it gains authority in a philosophical sense, it has sovereignty because it maintains its power through various means which can be described factually.

Um, well i'm sorta of arguing for a absolute monarchy with limitations. I am willing to admit that monarch all powers provided there are certain restriction upon these powers (either by a document, or some tradition or ethic system). But for the purpose of this discussion, lets assume a good monarch in an absolute monarchy.

I suppose one of my problems is in that 'assume a good monarch' thing - you can never do that.

Does any country in the world currently operate in the manner you describe?

Yeah there is no doubt many different opinions on this within Hinduism. The traditional opinion (of you know Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhavacharya and the ancient commentary of Vedanta) was that our Birth was actually a result of our Karma. That someone born in a Brahmin body was qualified to be a Brahman and so on. Its very clear in their works that this is the case. But later, I think as time moved on the views shifted and became more egalitarian. Birth actually became a very very minor factor and rather it was one's qualities that determined one's spiritual advancement. Our school called this the daiva varnahsrama (or classes based upon qualities not birth). I'm guessing this was mirrored by many of its contemporary schools too. We see during this time the rise of the Bhakti schools and the idea that everyone is eligible to perform worship of God. I personally support the latter system over the former, but Hindu scripture does claim that being born in a royal family is a result of great pious action and is a form of reward.

You're better versed in scripture than I am, so I'll concede on those points, but I'll maintain my understanding that there've always been teachers who say that the process is about us taking the births needed for the working out of our karma, rather than being rewarded with high social roles by dint of piety (whatever that is, exactly, opinions seem to differ).

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Well, support for anarcho-syndicalist ideals seems to me ultimately somewhat at odds with nationalist ideas, as the latter are based on separations between peoples based on social constructs aligned to geography. Not that the causes can't work together for a time, but ultimately I think the ideals of anarchism can't be fully realised in a nationalist environment.

That's surprising. But informative! I was referring to the fact the Constitutional Peasant was advocating a leadership arrangement that wasn't a monarchy (along with the associated myths and what-have-you) and that he was rubbishing Arthur's claim to divine kingship quite expertly. I feel like anarcho-syndicalism could work within the context of maintaining a nation state in theory - but probably not in reality.

 

[Altfish]

They are a good tourist attraction.

 

[Kirran]

That's surprising. But informative! I was referring to the fact the Constitutional Peasant was advocating a leadership arrangement that wasn't a monarchy (along with the associated myths and what-have-you) and that he was rubbishing Arthur's claim to divine kingship quite expertly. I feel like anarcho-syndicalism could work within the context of maintaining a nation state in theory - but probably not in reality.

Makes sense, yeah. I suppose ultimately in practice if anarchist ideals were to become predominant in society, nationalist ideals would probably be falling out of fashion.

 

[Reggie Miller]

To me, an American, it depends on who the monarch is. I don't like Queen Elizabeth (too stuffy), Charles (Oooo) but I do like Prince William and Princess Kate a lot.

I hope William becomes king and wish him a long reign.

 

[Kirran]

Monarchy Myth Buster