Yes, monarchy is the preferred form of government in both liberal and libertarian philosophy, because individual liberty depends on the secular worship of an individual representing the embodiment of the state.
…
:dubious:
Frankly, I’m getting the strong impression that this whole Liberal thing is one big put on.
Well, yes. The idea of a “head of state” is nothing but the appendix of the notion of a single individual being invested with divine authority. Excise it from the body politic.
Government officials who are employed for the purpose of engaging in diplomacy. Or, when they have time or the occasion is important enough, the chief diplomat or the head of government.
Uh … what? Who travels on behalf of the government? Surely, all government officials travel in order to conduct the business of government.
Are you seriously suggesting that the United Kingdom has, by keeping a monarch, saved the taxpayers the burden of employing officials and bureaucrats to conduct the business of government?
And what guarantee that a hereditary American monarch would have saved you this suffering? Surely, George W. Bush has benefited from privileges and education comparable to those that Elizabeth II has benefited from.
I guess it’s commendable to some degree that you admit it, but it doesn’t say much about the quality of your judgment. Would you like to retract the OP altogether?
Allow me to suggest the following:
[clears throat]"Dear, fellow Dopers. Please read the OP to state:
Annie Leibovitz, one of the most commercially successful photographers of all time, and the creator of numerous iconic images in modern culture, whose reputation for professionalism and artistic vision, led her to being hired to take a portrait of Elizabeth II, has, in my opinion, a very annoying voice."
What say ye?
We can extend the UK Monarchy to include:
Neither sounds right to me, let alone to Liberal’s philosophy.
There’s a difference between a political philosophy and a form of government, just as there is a difference between a scientific theory and a bunsen burner. Any form of government is libertarian so long as that government governs no one without their consent. I prefer a monarchy, but that doesn’t mean that I would force it upon you. I don’t know why that would be hard to grasp. I guess people just aren’t used to the idea of their consent having any actual value.
Your questions are all quite naive, but are summed up nicely in the one. There is a difference between the business of state and the business of government. Most nations split them apart (unlike the US). That’s why Russia, for example, has both a president (head of state) and a prime minister (head of government). A few minutes of inquiry into those terms would enrich your understanding of the matter greatly. (On the other hand, you could dig in your heels and act like I’ve been condescending or something and remain ignorant. Your choice.) The Queen is the head of state. The Prime Minister is the head of government.
Yes and no. I won’t retract completely, because it would negate the give and take of having been persuaded that perhaps I’m not 100% right. Hell, I may not be even a little bit right, but the OP was how I felt at the time, and a complete retraction would smell to me of wanting to erase that I ever felt that way. To me it would be akin to someone regretting their post and begging the mods to get rid of it because it would cause them embarassment.
I’m not explaining that well.
It would feel like I outright waffled on a position solely because I got beat down rather than having changed my point of view after rational discourse.
As for the quality of my judgement, and whether or not you have generously decided that it MIGHT be commendable that I’ll admit that I was wrong, I’m not even sure what to say about that. Uh, thanks?
The business of state is among the functions of government. There is absolutely no reason that they must be considered as separate. You assumption that they are irredeemably separate is the naive one.
No, actually, many nations have a nominally separate apparatus of state, which is actually under the complete supervision of the head of government. The queen doesn’t do anything as head of state that the prime minister doesn’t direct or approve of. The idea that this structure somehow saves the government time and resources is risible.
Do you think that pointing out obvious facts somehow constitutes an argument? Yes, many nation-states have separate heads of government and state. That is not proof that the function of state is independent of government. In how many cases is the function of state actually independent of the government? In how many cases does the function of state actually need to be independent of the government?
You seem to be suffering from the misconception that I don’t know what a head of state and a head of government is. My argument is that the business of state is, in conception and in practice, a governmental function. By acting as head of state, Elizabeth II essentially serves a governmental function and is in many respects – practically even if not nominally – subordinate to the head of government. Pointing out that the terms “state” and “government” exist and that there exist “heads of state” and “heads of government” is not a rebuttal of that argument. You’re mistaken that “Go look it up in the dictionary” is some kind of trump card in a disagreement over governance.
Now you’re just being offensive.
Isn’t a hereditary monarchy, by definition, forced on the population of whatever country they are a monarch of? It’s difficult to understand how you square your fixation with consent and individual rights with an institution that places one person in a position of privledge based solely on the circumstances of their birth, particularly if there’s no mechanism to remove them from that position. Certainly, Elizabeth has limited powers over her kingdom, but shouldn’t the people have some choice in who represents them, even in purely ceremonial matters. Consider the current president’s record, not as head of government, but only as head of state, and ask yourself if you’d want that person representing your nation for over fifty years, as Elizabeth has represented the UK, with absolutely no remedy to remove or replace him? Where’s the “actual value” of consent there?
I think you’re just being overly sensitive, as well as outright wrong; e.g., " The queen doesn’t do anything as head of state that the prime minister doesn’t direct or approve of." That’s simply factually incorrect.
The mechanism is obviously removal of your consent. I think what you’re introducing that I’m not is the notion that you and I must have the same government. I see selecting a government that same as I see selecting any other service; after all, to govern means to secure rights and property. Now you may argue that my view on that is crazy or whatever, but it is in no way in conflict with my own — keywords: my own — preference for a monarchy. You don’t want her? Then don’t consent. But let’s spare everyone the debate about how practical noncontiguous governments are because that’s beside the point and merely changes the subject. What I’m telling you (and what I’ve always advocated) is that I may give consent to a Queen, while you are free to give or withhold your consent as you see fit. If this isn’t clear to you, then I can’t explain it any better, so maybe we should just drop it. My explanation stands (and has always stood — this is the umpteenth time I’ve covered this).
Are you saying you prefer a monarchy, but not one that rules you? If not, does that mean you’re in favor of someone who inherits some degree of power over you? Which powers are they allowed to have over a libertarian such as yourself?
I don’t define to govern as to rule. As I said, I define to govern as to secure rights and property. It is the people who have authority over their government, not the other way around. That’s what I’ve always said. I realize that most people don’t think that way, but I’ve been trying to explain why my personal preference for a monarchy does not conflict with my political philosophy — and I believe I’ve done that.
Suppose that what is now the United Kingdom adopted a republican constitution and became the Republic of Great Britain, with an elected government and no constitutional reference to the monarchy, the Church of England, the peerage, etc. That is, this hypothetical constitution made no reference to the monarchy and all the powers of governance and state were explicitly granted to the elected government. However, the constitution also did not ban the monarchy. Thus, the royal family, the Church of England, and the peerage could continue to exist, to the extent that the individual members of those bodies chose to keep them going, and individual citizens of the Republic of Great Britain could recognize them if they so chose to, but such recognition would have no effect on the operation of the government or of the Great British Republic’s relationship with other nation-states.
Is that what you’re talking about, an individual’s choice to recognize Elizabeth II as his or her personal sovereign and the embodiment of his or her … umm … nationhood, in the same way that he or she could choose Jesus Christ to be his or her personal savior, but entirely disassociated with the mechanisms of governance?
Meh. Coulda been worse. Annie could have insisted on the horse.
(Liebovitz originally had the idea for the Queen to pose on a horse. In her apartments.)
Yes, sort of, I suppose. But I feel the same way about a government in general. “We hold these truths to be self-evident… that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men… and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Government without consent is the very definition of tyranny. Seriously, if you’re interested in my take on this, search on “libertarian monarchy” for my username. I would imagine I have posts going back to 1999.
The United Kingdom is a free country. There are republican political parties operating there. Said parties are free to stand candidates in any parliamentary constituency and the denizens of said constituency are free to vote for that candidate. If enough people, in enough constituencies, vote for that party’s candidates then that party will form a government and bee free to dismantle the monarchy. The British population are quity happy with monarchy in general and Elizabeth II in particular. As long as she lives (& she could see her 100th birthday and beyond) the monarchy will survive.
Furthermore, not only would the Queen be constitutionally bound to give Royal Assent to such an act, but the Queen herself has said that she would willingly do so if that is what Parliament decided.
glee If you are so dead set against the Windsors because of your heartfelt hatred of those who owe their positions and priveleges to being born to the right parents then why is your occupation of choice teaching overpriveleged kids at a highly expensive fee paying school such unneccesary disciplines as how to play Bridge?
Average people couldn’t afford to send their kids to the school that you teach at no matter how much they want to do the best by their kids.
Why given your outrage aren’t you teaching at an inner city school in East London or the midlands?
Judging by their adverts the state education system is desperately short of teachers.
Either your given reasons for your hatred of the Royal Family are not the real ones OR you are a total hypocrite.
I would guess because there’s a difference between all men being created equal, and all men receiving an equal outcome.
So you’re saying a monarch should have those powers which Vladimir Putin now has?
A spinoff thread that raises some of these same issues: I Tell Ya, I Get No Respect, No Respect - Treatment of Queens and Presidents - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board