Originally Posted by douglas denny:
Welcome! I like the name. I think UKIP should change its title to yours

DED
-

Thank you, Im sure
[Rep]

Originally Posted by noachian:
You can 'in theory' all you like; the United Kingdom is still a better place to live than Zimbabwe.

And isn't Mugabe acting like an hereditary monarch reminds me of lets see now William the B@5t@rd or Charles I

Originally Posted by :
And who is not usbject to the same laws in a Constitutional Monarchy? (meaning that the Monarch is subject to the Constitution and thus subject to specific laws). If you're refering to the Monarch not being under common law, well in a modern Deomcratic Kingdom like Great Britain she [the Queen] most certainly is. She can be tried for war-crimes etc she is subject to exactly the same laws as we are. And just to pre-counter any arguments that are put forward about her standard of living, go to Malta to see their president or Zimbabwe and she Bob's house.

So why are the monarchs subjects encouraged to abase themselves by bowing and scraping and they are exempt from many laws also the way inwhich they have accumulated wealth has been by what we regard these days as in an illegal way

At least the Anglo Saxons elected their monarch's

Originally Posted by :
I would agree. However certain situations in which Parliament would need desolving could prove impossible for the people to actually go about doing this, since parliament technically is the people in representative democracy.

Simple get rid of representative democracy and have true democracy job done (especially as the numbskull who is my MP is post stopped on the grounds of good taste and possible libel but Bob Blizzard knows what he is
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
And isn't Mugabe acting like an hereditary monarch reminds me of lets see now William the B@5t@rd or Charles I

No, he is acting like an evil dictator, but happens to be the president of a republic. My arguement is that Republic is not superior to monarchy, there is no absolute monarch or republican dictatorship, only evil men. No matter what possition they hold. Mugabe is not acting like an absolute monarch he is acting like an evil man who's lust for power and rank has lead him to abuse the highest ranking offiice of Zimbabwe. No matter what possition they take, some men still crave absolute power, whether the Constitution be Executively Monarchical or Executively Republican/Presidential.

That is why I said you over-stated the value of a republic. Everyone being 'equal' etc is not true to reality. Nor is it true to theory in some cases, I'd rather be black and live somewhere other than the United States inbetween 1600's until 1960. Theres a republic based on equality and freedom and yet has exercised little of it since its founding.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by noachian:
Smidgey; I know longer wish to constantly argue with you. You don't know me, you don't know me at all. I am sorry if what I put offends you, I am only 16; I don't have a monopoly on life.

Firstly, why are you replying then? Secondly, you have not offended me.

Originally Posted by :
You said in one post "Ron Paul isn't actually a libertarian" well your wrong, your just an anarchist.

You say I don't know you, then you claim to know what my political beliefs are - I am not an anarchist. A bit hypocritical on your part.

Originally Posted by :
I have only one agrument against you and that is, from what I have gathered of you from your posts is that you seem to have an unbalanced philosophy. You freely exercise your rights, good, but you do not consider the right to individual opinion of other people.

When have I said you have no right to your opinion? I don't see how you came to this conclusion? As to considering your opinion - I have considered and rejected it. Does your rejection of my opinion also mean that you did not consider it?

Originally Posted by :
I am sure you are aware of extremes. Collectivism/Statism - Anarchism.... well I think it is best to be in the middle. Don't you?

Nope.

Originally Posted by :
I believe in a balanced Constitution where 'power' is exercised equally and not abused by a single institution (like the Commons in this country), a commonwealth of close nations (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland possibly) based on individual rights but the respect of the institutions which are established to defend them. I believe in a Constitutional Monarchy where the Head of State is a non-political emobdiment of the State, where the various cultural tradtitions are manifest in a hereditary, ceremonial office. A cultural society where the citizen is free to own property, free to access a free-market and where the Government has no right to put a persons rights on paper and read it to them. The liberty of the citizen is supreme above all 'nitty-gritty' regulatory beuarocracy, but still one must abide by laws set down in order to preserve liberties, just because they are laws this does not of course make them morals, this just protects the morals to which already exist in the universe. For instance because murder is illegal, that does not make it immoral, it is immoral because it violates somebody's rights; the law simply punishes people who violate this in order to protect it.

Where we are a society, but we are truely free. Britain has not achieved this, or atleast not anymore.

I would love to hear what you think.

I believe in a minimal state where the rights of the individual is respected as much as possible - which requires absolute equality in law and as little taxation as possible. Society should be free to evolve and change without the influences of the state (as much as possible).
[Rep]

Originally Posted by noachian:
That is why I said you over-stated the value of a republic. Everyone being 'equal' etc is not true to reality. Nor is it true to theory in some cases, I'd rather be black and live somewhere other than the United States inbetween 1600's until 1960. Theres a republic based on equality and freedom and yet has exercised little of it since its founding.

Where have I made any statement about a republic ?
I have said that the original constitution of the founding fathers would be a good place to start but that was all

As regards the USA the founding fathers would have a pink fit if they saw what their ideals have been changed too

I would like to see equality in the following

before the law
in educational opportunities
provision of health care
housing

and given time I'm sure I can think of many more
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
I believe in a minimal state where the rights of the individual is respected as much as possible - which requires absolute equality in law and as little taxation as possible. Society should be free to evolve and change without the influences of the state (as much as possible).

Absolutely ...
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
I believe in a minimal state where the rights of the individual is respected as much as possible - which requires absolute equality in law and as little taxation as possible. Society should be free to evolve and change without the influences of the state (as much as possible).

As do I; with a traditional Crown as this states reprisentative.
[Rep]