PDA

View Full Version : Ousting the Royal Tyrants




MRK
04-24-2011, 06:15 PM
Today my American mother implored me to watch the wedding of the future head of state of England. I told her I wasn't interested in the wedding, but to get back to me when the people of the UK oust the royal family and the house of lords, because that would be an event worth watching. That got me wondering if the English would do this any time soon or if they were complacent with their masters. I found this article about the matter to be of interest and would like to share it with you: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/the-royal-wedding/shareTweet/article1930902/?service=mobile . Also of interst is the hypocritical [re: 'humanitarian' war in Libya] relationships the royal family holds in the middle east by considering that the most favored protestor-pwning dictatorship in bahrain is cordially invited to the dawning of the latest chapter of England's slavery: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/outrage-at-dictators-invited-to-royal-wedding-2274230.html

Vessol
04-24-2011, 06:25 PM
It's getting so irritating watching all the news coverage of the wedding crap. It's just as annoying as the celebrity crap, but it's even more annoying knowing that these particular parasites still hold political power.

KramerDSP
04-24-2011, 07:13 PM
I was under the impression that any power the Royals have is largely ceremonial, no?

KramerDSP
04-24-2011, 07:23 PM
Here's a good article on the movement to get rid of the Monarchy in England.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/wills-and-kate-not-my-cup-of-tea-how-republicans-are-plotting-a-right-antiroyal-kneesup-2270406.html


Smith, who previously worked in IT, describes himself as a "constitutional anorak", and his motives essentially boil down to a point of democracy: he doesn't think our head of state should be unelected and unaccountable. Some fellow members object on the grounds of hereditary principle, while others think the monarchy is a waste of money and still more simply dislike our own particular brand – the Windsors themselves – whom they consider offensive, racist, bumbling or plain embarrassing.

"It's a paradox, because while the Queen is enormously powerful, she is also powerless, as all the power is in the hands of the prime minster," says Smith. "One argument in favour of the monarchy is that it gives us a neutral, impartial head of state, but actually she's not impartial, she's just a puppet of the PM. She is pointless and does nothing of worth other than go round opening things, cutting ribbons and making speeches that are completely unmemorable."

......


The leaders sound like Ron Paul supporters :) There are mentions of following the Constitution and even the Gandhi quote that we use here all the time. At the end of the article, people explain why they joined this group and why the Royal Wedding turns them off. It's pretty interesting stuff.

Vessol
04-24-2011, 07:33 PM
I was under the impression that any power the Royals have is largely ceremonial, no?

The lack of direct power as either an executive or legislator does not mean that they have no power. They have large and massive influence, just like corporations. I don't think anyone here would argue that the corporations are just ceremonial and have no real power?

KramerDSP
04-24-2011, 07:36 PM
The lack of direct power as either an executive or legislator does not mean that they have no power. They have large and massive influence, just like corporations. I don't think anyone here would argue that the corporations are just ceremonial and have no real power?

I understand what you're saying, but I think there's a better analogy than comparing corporations to the Royal Family.

Vessol
04-24-2011, 07:38 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I think there's a better analogy than comparing corporations to the Royal Family.

Possibly. I couldn't grasp for any better analogies that revolve around influence, but not direct control.

Freedom 4 all
04-24-2011, 07:57 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I think there's a better analogy than comparing corporations to the Royal Family.

Here's one, they're fucking hobos. Except instead of parasitically leeching thousands off taxpayers for rudimentary food, shelter and health care, they leech tens of millions for a fucking palace, world class food and total health care, despite the fact that they have no actual function and contribute nothing to society.

Freedom 4 all
04-24-2011, 08:01 PM
It's getting so irritating watching all the news coverage of the wedding crap. It's just as annoying as the celebrity crap, but it's even more annoying knowing that these particular parasites still hold political power.

They hold no real political power of any kind in places like Canada and Australia where they are technically head of state. I'm not sure how much they hold in the UK but I don't think it's much. Really the main difference between the Queen and celebs like Lady Gaga is that at least Lady Gaga makes her own money through nominally capitalist means whereas the Queen is merely an example of unequal socialism.

goopc
04-24-2011, 08:03 PM
How about abolish the House of Commons and return power to the Monarchy instead? The UK would be in much better shape if its leaders actually owned the country, instead of being temporary care takers who constantly need to buy off constituents to get reelected. All those MPs don't care about any serious long-term fixes to the budget, but Prince William certainly does. If you had to be ruled by someone, wouldn't you rather it be a monarch with personal interest in your affairs instead of some sleazeball politician who's skilled in rhetoric and lying and who can't see past the next election?

Vessol
04-24-2011, 08:31 PM
How about abolish the House of Commons and return power to the Monarchy instead? The UK would be in much better shape if its leaders actually owned the country, instead of being temporary care takers who constantly need to buy off constituents to get reelected. All those MPs don't care about any serious long-term fixes to the budget, but Prince William certainly does. If you had to be ruled by someone, wouldn't you rather it be a monarch with personal interest in your affairs instead of some sleazeball politician who's skilled in rhetoric and lying and who can't see past the next election?

All parasites are the same. Some suck the blood out of you fast, some slow. But they all suck blood out.

Are you somehow saying that a absolute ruler would have a personal interest in their subjects? If they do, it is only so that they can exploit them for more. But the same thing goes for modern democratic rulers as well. Certainly in our current country you only have more freedom because that makes you produce more for the parasites, not because the parasites personally care for you. A healthy and robust host provides more blood.

Instead of having a king parasite who sucks our blood and has children who then suck our blood, we got the honor of choosing instead who will suck our blood.

Sorry if my rhetoric is a bit off, I'm over-tired.

Mach
04-24-2011, 08:53 PM
What about the Royal Blood here? You know, the old, whichever Presidential Candidate that has the most Royal blood, wins. :D

Freedom 4 all
04-24-2011, 09:10 PM
How about abolish the House of Commons and return power to the Monarchy instead? The UK would be in much better shape if its leaders actually owned the country, instead of being temporary care takers who constantly need to buy off constituents to get reelected. All those MPs don't care about any serious long-term fixes to the budget, but Prince William certainly does. If you had to be ruled by someone, wouldn't you rather it be a monarch with personal interest in your affairs instead of some sleazeball politician who's skilled in rhetoric and lying and who can't see past the next election?

Lol as much as I find the idea of an unelected leader repellent, it's hard to imagine old prince William doing a worse job than current UK leadership.

Vessol
04-24-2011, 09:14 PM
What about the Royal Blood here? You know, the old, whichever Presidential Candidate that has the most Royal blood, wins. :D

I remember refuting that awhile. Some poster here claimed that because so many Presidents in the US were distantly blood related to monarchs, there must be some conspiracy afoot!

When you go back far enough and far enough a part, we all are pretty blood related. I imagine that many members on these boards are unknowingly fairly close within a few degrees of blood relations with some monarch.

JCLibertarian
04-24-2011, 09:19 PM
I don't see 67% of the people voting to take away my wealth as any less tyrannical than a King or Queen doing so. In fact, I would rather have a Monarchy that granted social and economic freedoms than a republic or direct democracy where my individual freedoms where constrained by an uneducated and aggressive voting populace. Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, are all really just different mask for the same kind of state violence. While I don't like Monarchy worship, I don't see it as any worse than worshipping a Democratic/Representative Government.

JCLibertarian
04-24-2011, 09:22 PM
Here's one, they're fucking hobos. Except instead of parasitically leeching thousands off taxpayers for rudimentary food, shelter and health care, they leech tens of millions for a fucking palace, world class food and total health care, despite the fact that they have no actual function and contribute nothing to society.
Don't all politicians do that? I agree, the State is a parasite, but this isn't just characteristic of the Royals. That is an argument against any State. But I bet they bring in more money in tourism than they take, unlike our politicians.

nate895
04-24-2011, 11:27 PM
How about abolish the House of Commons and return power to the Monarchy instead? The UK would be in much better shape if its leaders actually owned the country, instead of being temporary care takers who constantly need to buy off constituents to get reelected. All those MPs don't care about any serious long-term fixes to the budget, but Prince William certainly does. If you had to be ruled by someone, wouldn't you rather it be a monarch with personal interest in your affairs instead of some sleazeball politician who's skilled in rhetoric and lying and who can't see past the next election?

This is actually the strongest monarchist argument in a nutshell. I find it moderately convincing. In fact, it's the main reason why I would not advocate for the abolition of a monarchy if I actually lived under one. However, I would not go far as to advocate for the abolition of democratic institutions within a monarchical system of government.

Think about it for a second. If the government is vested ultimately in a single family, there is a much greater incentive for the monarch to not squander the treasury if the monarch wants to pass on a healthy kingdom to his heir. Furthermore, the monarch would not necessarily be concerned with stealing everyone's rights because they want to engender good feelings with the public. They want to make themselves known as a protector of justice for the weak and defender against foreign invasion, not as a stealer of the people's bread.

Another thing is that this generally worked out in Europe. It wasn't perfect, and there were plenty of tyrants, but, for the most part, kings sought to maintain justice and the rule of law in their realm. England had plenty of kings that are known simply by the fact that nothing really bad happened while they were king, and that's what I want from a government, nothing particularly bad happening. On the other hand, every western democracy in the world in the short time that form of government has been dominant has become bankrupt, both economically and morally.

I'm not some kind of reactionary bent on reestablishing the monarchy, but I think a modified form of the British government (introduction of a codified constitution being the major change, along with quite a few others) might be a fairly decent form of government.

However, I must end by noting the moral degeneracy of the British Royal Family. I mean, this group of them, with the possible exception of the Queen herself, is a bunch of loons, and the British people abet their degeneracy. Prince William and the soon-to-be Princess have lived in sin on-and-off, and no one gives a damn. Prince Charles wants to have the title "Defender of Faith" instead of "Defender of the Faith," and he is known globally as a philanderer and New Age adherent. Prince Philip (Elizabeth's husband) is a certifiable loon, considering that he thinks the earth is overpopulated, and that we should cut back on our population drastically.

I hope and pray that the UK sees revival, and that it reaches into the halls of Buckingham Palace. That is the only thing that will save the isles from their fate.

Pauls' Revere
04-24-2011, 11:35 PM
This alone should make you vomit!

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/

Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).

This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin.

BlackTerrel
04-25-2011, 12:07 AM
They hold no real political power of any kind in places like Canada and Australia where they are technically head of state. I'm not sure how much they hold in the UK but I don't think it's much. Really the main difference between the Queen and celebs like Lady Gaga is that at least Lady Gaga makes her own money through nominally capitalist means whereas the Queen is merely an example of unequal socialism.

This. But it's a big difference and an important distinction.

If people purchase Lady Gaga's albums and pay money to see her in concert that is capitalism and good for her.

Having billions just because you were born into royalty is sort of BS given that this is 2011.

specialK
04-25-2011, 12:22 AM
This alone should make you vomit!

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/

Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).

This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin.


The above is quite misleading. The Crown owns the land, which is a corporation sole or legal entity. The person, Elizabeth Rex II, does not own the land. It is the corporation whom she represents who does.

AZKing
04-25-2011, 12:30 AM
I can't STAND the monarchy and all this crap about the royal wedding. Almost ALL of the parasites are divorced now. Remember what Prince Charles did to Diana after that ridiculous ceremony?

Rothbardian Girl
04-25-2011, 08:06 AM
Don't have any love here for the monarchy, either. I was actually hoping the wedding would be disrupted by a few brave protesters. =3

Seraphim
04-25-2011, 08:08 AM
I truly despise that The Queen has her old, fascist face of my 20$ bills.

stuntman stoll
04-25-2011, 08:37 AM
Here's one, they're fucking hobos. Except instead of parasitically leeching thousands off taxpayers for rudimentary food, shelter and health care, they leech tens of millions for a fucking palace, world class food and total health care, despite the fact that they have no actual function and contribute nothing to society.

bingo!!!

Freedom 4 all
04-25-2011, 09:57 AM
I can't STAND the monarchy and all this crap about the royal wedding. Almost ALL of the parasites are divorced now. Remember what Prince Charles did to Diana after that ridiculous ceremony?

I've been hesitant to order any Canadian or Australian silver coins just so I don't have to look at the queen's ugly face...

Kind of says something about out respective countries that the Canadian gold maple leaf has a tyrannical social parasite on the back while the American gold eagle has what appears to be the Roman goddess of Liberty. Canada always kind of sucked as far as liberty is concerned, but you guys used to be so cool. What happened?

Freedom 4 all
04-25-2011, 10:10 AM
This alone should make you vomit!

http://www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/

Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.

She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.

The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).

This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.

She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin.


Yes, but I don't think she can legally sell Canada or Australia to China or anything like that. If she could, she probably would have done it long ago to pay for the UKs growing entitlements and debt.