Republicanism, Bureaucracy and the 'Freedom' of the Press

Originally Posted by :
Prince Harry/William/Edward/Andrew would no doubt get elected by the public anywyas because they are so familiur with the people who are born in to a responsability to serve the public.

I notice you didn't mention Charlie boy.

I don't mind the Monarchy, after all what can they do from Bavaria..............

[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
Wrong actually; Parliament is an active body of the Crown and evolved from the Crown. The Monarch simply reprisents the Crown, isn't the total sum of it. That is one point I have been trying to get across.

The parliament evolved as a judicial body similar in many ways to the French parlements but also having some similarities to the estates and estates-general. However unlike the French parliament it did not detach from the Curia regis and it is probably wrong to say it evolved from the crown. That seems to me to suggest the wrong kind of ideas of sovereignty for the middle ages.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
I have read John Locke, I have studied and read him through and through, and I have got to say that he is one very wise and honourable man. But unfortunetly the way you seem to express his values in your own opinions is quite anti-social. At least that is what is seems; but forgive me if I have missunderstood you (I know alot about that from our recent disscussions).

The thing is Smidgey; from what you put, your atitudes and language you actually seem like the type of person I would get along great with; but because you express youself of in such an arrogant manner; it makes it hard for me to even argue with you.

I must say the use of terms like collectivism used as it has been here is neither relevant nor useful.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
I must say the use of terms like collectivism used as it has been here is neither relevant nor useful.

I was simply repeating what smidgey was accusing me of; he is the one throwing the word around like its 'And' or 'The'.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by noachian:
I was simply repeating what smidgey was accusing me of; he is the one throwing the word around like its 'And' or 'The'.

I know, I was talking about Smidgey's usage of the term.

[Rep]

It is useful in this context because it is the truth.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by noachian:
Wrong actually; Parliament is an active body of the Crown and evolved from the Crown. The Monarch simply reprisents the Crown, isn't the total sum of it. That is one point I have been trying to get across.

That wasn't my point.

Originally Posted by :
Ok; Smidhey, I refuse to counter argue to you, becaause one can't possibly win. You said in another thread that, I quote "You do not have the right to educate somebody" yet whatever I put on this blasted forum you seem to pop up and try to educate me.

Indeed - but you don't have to listen and be educated (which you are clearly doing :-)).

Just because I don't have the right to educate doesn't mean I can't try if you are willing to listen (and vice versa). I don't have a right to live in a house - but I still do.

Originally Posted by :
So I am TELLING, as another human being with the right to tell you all I like (whether you actually take onboard any of my telling is up to your own self-justification); you are clearly a republican and a libertarian; not one as a result of the other. From your attitude towards the Crown and your somewhat ill-educated arguments against its benefits in this and other threads, you are clearly a republican because you dissagree with the Monarchy, not because you believe in self-ownership.

I'm a republican because I'm a libertarian, sorry. A libertarian cannot support someone who makes pro-EU speeches (such as Prince Charles).

If the monarchy was absolute and enacted only libertarian policies - then I would not be a republican, but as you stated in another thread - you are talking about the British monarchy, which is sadly not libertarian and supports very much the opposite (as shown by Prince Charles' speech to the EU).

I will forgive you because you couldn't be more wrong. You know nothing about my personal life and I would prefer if you kept opinions about how I act around others to yourself.

Furthermore, this is a conversation about the monarchy - not about society. You have done this again and again, the two are not the same thing. My arguments against the state simply cannot be applied to society and to do so is a straw man on your part.

Originally Posted by :
The thing is Smidgey; from what you put, your atitudes and language you actually seem like the type of person I would get along great with; but because you express youself of in such an arrogant manner; it makes it hard for me to even argue with you.

Right back at you.

Originally Posted by :
I am loyal to what the crown reprisents. I am aware of its faliures as everything fails in life. I am grateful and loyal to our Queen (yes our Queen, despite your self-deluded concludions).

Your queen, not mine.

Further, notice how you call me arrogant and yet in two threads you have implied that I am immoral and a liar and just not called me self-deluded.

Originally Posted by :
I am fully aware that I own myself, and that had the Crown not been there at all my rights as a human being would still be there. But it is not the fact that it is the law that makes something 'right'; but because the law punishes those who violate these 'rights' I am grateful to it. I recall you saying "I do not dissagree with murder because it is the law..etcetc" along those lines....NIETHER DOES ANYBODY! No-body; I repeat NO-BODY dissagrees with murder because it is against the law, it is because it violates the human right to live that it is wrong, but we are gratful to the law for punishing those who do commit this, not gratful to the law just because it says murder is wrong...no-body on earth thinks that.

Then why do you state that me being moral because it is right and not because of the law is something that you cannot believe? You have just contradicted yourself here. I have never followed the law (in the criminal sense - obviously I had to in the civil sense to get a job and such) and for some reason you do not believe that in the other thread, yet you contradict that very notion here.

Originally Posted by :
I believe "In a balanced constitution, a Commonwealth based on equality and freedom of speech, and a Monarchy which values above all the liberty of the subject." that is basically what I believe; because I do not believe in anarchy; much like you seem to express. Yet nor do I believe in collective-authoritarianism. I am free to do as my rights permit me.

Okay, but then why do you go onto say this:

Originally Posted by :
I have the right ot educate you if you are wrong,

Which contradicts what you just said...

Originally Posted by :
I have the right to live my lifestyle as I please so long as it does not violate the rights of other men; but unlike you I do not live in my own self-justified one-man society, I live in a society of other men, ones who work together as brothers, yet still maintain their individual rights and lives. I would advise that you accept a similar moddel...or is it to collectivist for you?

So do I! This is extremely frustrating. Do you actually read what I write?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
So do I! This is extremely frustrating. Do you actually read what I write?

Then you are not a republican because you are a libertarian; your a republican simply on republican terms, which I can except.

Anyways; I see what you are arguing with me for; I am saying that I support the British Crown yet I am caliming myself a Libertarian, but you are saying this is impossible since the British Crown does not hold libertarian sentiments...right? I would say that the British Crown Did have Libertarian sentiments at certain point in history.

Anyways, I am trying to say I support the British Crown as appose to the European Federal laws. I am not a Monarchist because I am a libertarian, I am a Monarchist because most aspects of Monarchical philosophy I support. Besides the monarchy istelf doesn't conflict my Libertarian views. What the Crown enforces (and by Crown I mean all institutions of the Crown, mainly the Commons) I may not agree with, but I see my own right and many of the laws evolved from the Crown over centuries as a far better alternative to the European Federal laws.

I hope you understand why I support the Monarchy?

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Dane Clouston:
.

In the UR, Charles could perhaps have one five year term as Non-executive President as of right, having waited so long, and then being able to stand for election for one further five year term, after which it would be the turn of others.

The United Republic? What a ghastly name.

I want the 'Kingdom of England' back!

[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
It is useful in this context because it is the truth.

Not really. Any real decent analysis must go beyond methodological individualism and hence be open to being called "collectivist" but unless it is talking about completely absorbing individual identity and individuals in complete abstractions, like fascists or Orthodox Marxists, then it is not really good to call it collectivist.

[Rep]