It has come to my, and others, attention that there is something seriously wrong, not only with the tpyical political actions/affairs but with the general psyche of the nation and the psyche of external nations towards us.

Papers seem to turn their headlines from the scandals of the EU to what the Queen has done wrong. The woman who sacrifices her daily life for our country!

We have to face it. The Government needs a scape-goat. They need to turn the populace's attention from the verge of economic collapse to something they know the British public will rage about. "The Queen sits in her palace while black youths stab each other for money!" is exactly what they want people to think. The Government themselves have said they want would prefer it if the Monarchy would be disestablished in 'stages'. They want a bloody revolution. They want the Romanovs re-enacted, so that they can be seen as the ones who bring the poor from the gutter and bring the rich aristocrats from their strongholds. They want exactly what Australian Labour wants; to be able to choose their own Head of State, they want their own man in the highest ranking office in the 'United' 'Kingdom'. Once they have their own 'Puppet-President' just like Sarkozy; there would be little standing in their path to a United European Federation. The people want the Monarch gone, they want the royals in a bloody pool, and the Government tries to restore peoples faith in them by uniting us to a stronger and more economically stable Union: the European Union.

Our freedom, our rights, and our laws are traditionally vested in our evolving Crown; we need to stop blaming Her Majesty for crimes she hasn't even commited, she is the last ally our people still have. Our freedom rests on our alligence to the Crown. If you choose to betray it, then you have forsaken your allignience to our nation and our values.
[Rep]

I don't see what you are seeing, but I have a few points to make:

Firstly, our government's scapegoat is not the Queen, that is far from obvious. What is obvious is that the government's current scape goats are terrorists, young people or 'the world economy which is out of our hands'.

Secondly, the idea that our rights are vested in the crown is pure nonsense. I own myself whether the Queen says I own myself or not. She can say anything she likes, it doesn't automatically make it so.

Thirdly, 'our nation and our values'? This is a pretty strange statement, since I most certainly do not share your values (as evident by our disagreement) and many people in Britain most certainly do not. You should really change that statement to 'my view of this nation and my personal values'. Otherwise you sound like a collectivist.

Fourthly, what exactly has the monarch done to prevent the EU? I would like clear examples of things the monarch has done to prevent the EU integrating in this state.

Fifthly, I am enough of my own person to act without a monarch thank you very much. I don't need a monarch to supposedly affirm the law, affirm what is right and wrong and so forth. Some things are far more important and far higher than an old lady in London. The Queen is but a person like you or I and no amount of fawning and grovelling on your part will change that.

Sixthy, as to sacrificing her daily life to 'our' country, why is this such a noble endeavor? I would hedge to bet that Gordon brown believes he is doing the same thing (and lots of people would probably agree that most prime ministers have sincerely believed that they are doing what they believe is best for the country). Why should your opinion of the Queen in this instance be different from that of others who might hold the same opinion of Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
I don't see what you are seeing, but I have a few points to make:

Firstly, our government's scapegoat is not the Queen, that is far from obvious. What is obvious is that the government's current scape goats are terrorists, young people or 'the world economy which is out of our hands'.

Secondly, the idea that our rights are vested in the crown is pure nonsense. I own myself whether the Queen says I own myself or not. She can say anything she likes, it doesn't automatically make it so.

Thirdly, 'our nation and our values'? This is a pretty strange statement, since I most certainly do not share your values (as evident by our disagreement) and many people in Britain most certainly do not. You should really change that statement to 'my view of this nation and my personal values'. Otherwise you sound like a collectivist.

Fourthly, what exactly has the monarch done to prevent the EU? I would like clear examples of things the monarch has done to prevent the EU integrating in this state.

Fifthly, I am enough of my own person to act without a monarch thank you very much. I don't need a monarch to supposedly affirm the law, affirm what is right and wrong and so forth. Some things are far more important and far higher than an old lady in London. The Queen is but a person like you or I and no amount of fawning and grovelling on your part will change that.

Sixthy, as to sacrificing her daily life to 'our' country, why is this such a noble endeavor? I would hedge to bet that Gordon brown believes he is doing the same thing (and lots of people would probably agree that most prime ministers have sincerely believed that they are doing what they believe is best for the country). Why should your opinion of the Queen in this instance be different from that of others who might hold the same opinion of Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?

Smidgey; I am a much as a Libertarian as you or bleeding Ron Paul. I believe that everyone 'owns' themselves as much as they like to, but we have only to right to do this granted our peers do not oppress this state in which we 'own' ourselves. It doesn't change that we have rights and laws set down by Government's, whether you like them or not.

The Crown as an institution, as a symbol, reprisents the laws which have evolved from it over hundreds of years. You abide by these laws because more than one person said that in order for you to function within a just and civil society you must abide by these rules or you will be punished. What several people say automatically makes your desicion/opinion irrelivant when it comes to behaving as they see fit.

Now I think you would agree that many of the laws the crown reprisents, the right to own property, the right to be heard by a court, the right etc etc; these rights are set down by several/two people against the one person [you in this example] in order to make sure that you behave so that you don't interfere with the rights of the other 'ones' in your society.

What I was stating was not a statment of collectivism, but calling people to be loyal to the Crown, as oppose to loyal to the EU. Of course you will counter-argue that you are loyal to no-one and your alligence is no-where; but my friend, we have to work together in order to function as an active and just society. The Queen; Smidgey, may mean peanuts to you, but the institution and laws she reprisents, you are kept from the oppressive 'several/two'. The world is made of symnbols and metaphors and the Queen is just one of these metaphors; but she deserves those allegiance who believe in what she reprisents. That is all I was saying. Now if you don't believe in the values of the Crown and the laws and principals and rules to which it reprisents then you are free to be disloyal to it, and indeed disloyal to any other 'symbol' or 'metaphor'; but that means you are also disloyal to what they symbolise. If you are disloyal to what the Crown symbolises then fair enough. But I for one am loyal, and the liberty it grants me I am free to 'own' myself because of the just several/two who have established the crown as it now stand.
[Rep]

[quote=noachian;528750]Smidgey; I am a much as a Libertarian as you or bleeding Ron Paul.[quote]

Then why do you support the monarchy?

Secondly, Ron Paul is not really a libertarian.

Originally Posted by :
I believe that everyone 'owns' themselves as much as they like to, but we have only to right to do this granted our peers do not oppress this state in which we 'own' ourselves. It doesn't change that we have rights and laws set down by Government's, whether you like them or not.

I own myself whether the state exists or not.

My rights exist whether the state says they do or not.

Tell me, if the state says we have no right to life - should I respect that whether I like it or not?

Originally Posted by :
The Crown as an institution, as a symbol, reprisents the laws which have evolved from it over hundreds of years. You abide by these laws because more than one person said that in order for you to function within a just and civil society you must abide by these rules or you will be punished. What several people say automatically makes your desicion/opinion irrelivant when it comes to behaving as they see fit.

Evolved from it? You mean to suppress its absolute power over the people? To prevent its awful tyranny? The laws have no evolved from the crown - they come from parliament which keeps the crown in check (thankfully).

Again, I don't abide by these laws because they are laws. In fact, the fact that I do not murder or steal has absolutely nothing to do with the law.

Originally Posted by :
Now I think you would agree that many of the laws the crown reprisents, the right to own property, the right to be heard by a court, the right etc etc; these rights are set down by several/two people against the one person [you in this example] in order to make sure that you behave so that you don't interfere with the rights of the other 'ones' in your society.

Wrong, see above.

Maybe this is the case for other people, but if I were to wear the Ring of Gyges I would not use it for ill.

Originally Posted by :
What I was stating was not a statment of collectivism, but calling people to be loyal to the Crown, as oppose to loyal to the EU.

So you would swap one collectivism for another? Or maybe you can have both when Charles comes along! :-)

Originally Posted by :
Of course you will counter-argue that you are loyal to no-one and your alligence is no-where; but my friend, we have to work together in order to function as an active and just society.

I have a loyalty to humanity - in that I cause no harm.

Further, you show your collectivist stripes - we are talking about the state, not society.

Originally Posted by :
The Queen; Smidgey, may mean peanuts to you, but the institution and laws she reprisents, you are kept from the oppressive 'several/two'. The world is made of symnbols and metaphors and the Queen is just one of these metaphors; but she deserves those allegiance who believe in what she reprisents.

Which can be done without her. Why is she necessary for this function? You have still not explained this (and indeed you contradicted it in the other thread).

As a person the queen most certainly does not mean peanuts to me. As a symbol or an instution, the crown does.

Originally Posted by :
That is all I was saying. Now if you don't believe in the values of the Crown and the laws and principals and rules to which it reprisents then you are free to be disloyal to it, and indeed disloyal to any other 'symbol' or 'metaphor'; but that means you are also disloyal to what they symbolise. If you are disloyal to what the Crown symbolises then fair enough. But I for one am loyal, and the liberty it grants me I am free to 'own' myself because of the just several/two who have established the crown as it now stand.

What utter nonsense. Is murder wrong because the law says it is? What a vile and immoral sentiment. Murder is wrong because it violates the life, liberty and possessions of another person - not because the law says it is wrong.

Finally, the crown does not grant ownership of yourself! You own yourself in virtue of what others believe, that is the important point. the very fact that you use the word subject and believe yourself to be a subject contradicts your very own statement of self-ownership. John Locke - a far greater Englishperson than most kings and queens who have done nothing but trample the rights of their 'subjects', from Henry VIII to George III and beyond - argued against divine right and the monarchy in order to establish self-ownership. If he could easily see this, why can't you?
[Rep]

I'm not really a republican but one does wonder whether you greatly overstate you case when you go on about the Queen's sacrifice's.

Oh and btw just about all analyst's agree that monarchy is a dead issue in Australia so it isn't just the labour party. The real problem, and the reason the vast majority voted no in the referendum, was the alternative laid out and the way it was communicated.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
I'm not really a republican but one does wonder whether you greatly overstate you case when you go on about the Queen's sacrifice's.

Oh and btw just about all analyst's agree that monarchy is a dead issue in Australia so it isn't just the labour party. The real problem, and the reason the vast majority voted no in the referendum, was the alternative laid out and the way it was communicated.

I'd say Australia is a dead issue, never mind the Monarchy there.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by noachian:
I'd say Australia is a dead issue, never mind the Monarchy there.

Ahh insightful..........

Personally I think you and Smidgey are both wrong on several constitutional and political points above.
[Rep]

[quote=Smidgey;528963][quote=noachian;528750]Smidgey; I am a much as a Libertarian as you or bleeding Ron Paul.[quote]

Then why do you support the monarchy?

Secondly, Ron Paul is not really a libertarian.

I own myself whether the state exists or not.

My rights exist whether the state says they do or not.

Tell me, if the state says we have no right to life - should I respect that whether I like it or not?

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Evolved from it? You mean to suppress its absolute power over the people? To prevent its awful tyranny? The laws have not evolved from the crown - they come from parliament which keeps the crown in check (thankfully).

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.

Originally Posted by Smidgey:
Again, I don't abide by these laws because they are laws. In fact, the fact that I do not murder or steal has absolutely nothing to do with the law.

Wrong, see above.

Maybe this is the case for other people, but if I were to wear the Ring of Gyges I would not use it for ill.

So you would swap one collectivism for another? Or maybe you can have both when Charles comes along! :-)

I have a loyalty to humanity - in that I cause no harm.

Further, you show your collectivist stripes - we are talking about the state, not society.

Which can be done without her. Why is she necessary for this function? You have still not explained this (and indeed you contradicted it in the other thread).

As a person the queen most certainly does not mean peanuts to me. As a symbol or an instution, the crown does.

What utter nonsense. Is murder wrong because the law says it is? What a vile and immoral sentiment. Murder is wrong because it violates the life, liberty and possessions of another person - not because the law says it is wrong.

Finally, the crown does not grant ownership of yourself! You own yourself in virtue of what others believe, that is the important point. the very fact that you use the word subject and believe yourself to be a subject contradicts your very own statement of self-ownership. John Locke - a far greater Englishperson than most kings and queens who have done nothing but trample the rights of their 'subjects', from Henry VIII to George III and beyond - argued against divine right and the monarchy in order to establish self-ownership. If he could easily see this, why can't you?

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.

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 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 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). 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.

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. I have the right ot educate you if you are wrong, 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?
[Rep]

The Monarchy is the pinnacle of unjustified vast inequalities of inherited power, privilege and wealth.

We should be citizens not subjects. We should elect our democratic Non-executive Head of State of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

But it may take a while yet. Australia will no doubt become a republic first.

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.

Who knows how it will all work out, but the monarchy cannot last for ever. Nor should it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Dane Clouston:
The Monarchy is the pinnacle of unjustified vast inequalities of inherited power, privilege and wealth.

We should be citizens not subjects. We should elect our democratic Non-executive Head of State of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

But it may take a while yet. Australia will no doubt become a republic first.

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.

Who knows how it will all work out, but the monarchy cannot last for ever. Nor should it.

The UR? Typical republican drivel. You may dissagree with the Monarchy, but 70% of the British public actually activley support it; you've got your elected Head of State, shes in office already. Even if the Monarchy were abolished (by some cruel twist of communism) 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 can clearly tell from your statement that you haven't really evaluated the argument in favour of monarchy.

Britain hangs by it cultural foot by the lace that is the Monarchy.

(Smidgey don't bother)
[Rep]