Looks like another monarchy is about to bite the dust

"El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First!" (lightningzone) 06/08/2014 at 17:34 • Filed to: None

1

45

I don't know what the situation in Spain is, other than what the international !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , but I support a democratic republic replacing a monarchy or a theocracy(fortunately not the case here), any day.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

thebigbossyboss > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 17:38

0

Of course...the king was already a constitutional monarch meaning the real power in spain has rested with the Prime Minister's or military leaders, in the case of General Franco.

The monarch in spain (unlike Thailand) doesn't call the shots.

Mosqvich > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 17:39

1

I'm an American, but I disagree completely (my family is from Spain). The monarchy can be a uniting force. Look at the mess American is in with regard to its economy and politics. A constitutional monarchy can work very well. They are a small investment in giving a nation an identity. The hue and cry over the cost of these monarchs is laughable. We call that kind of money "budget dust." And it is just that.

If Spain changes, they'll become even more corrupt. At least the King had the good sense to step down and hand things off to his son. Felipe will hopefully provide a strong moderating force for Spain and hit the road "selling" Spain's industry, etc..., thus earning his keep.

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > Mosqvich 06/08/2014 at 17:45

0

There is a reason why most European monarchies, with centuries behind their back, were replaced by republics in only 101 years.

Mosqvich > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 17:50

0

And it's a mess over there. Probably even worse than here. Sweden, the UK, the Netherlands and Belgium seem to be doing just fine. I'm just saying, it needs to be a constitutional thing. Nobody cares about who your president is or will be. They will be interested in your King or Queen. For better or worse, the only President that gets much attention is the US President.

I Like Corollas > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 17:51

2

As a Spanish, I hope this would be the end for the Monarchy, but I pretty much doubt that.

Cé hé sin > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 17:52

0

There's probably also a reason why a fair number kept theirs and even (in the case of Spain) reverted to one. In 1905 Norway became independent and felt the need in those republican times to import a king from Denmark. They've kept the monarchy since.

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > Mosqvich 06/08/2014 at 17:55

0

In some places the prime minister is more important than the president, but that's not really a problem. Also, Germany, France, Italy and Finland, the republican system made them into miserable pits. Not.

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > Mosqvich 06/08/2014 at 17:58

1

Also, I'd rather not have a leader who gets the same type of attention as Jay-Z and Miley Cyrus.

Clown Shoe Pilot > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 17:58

1

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:00

0

People from the US tend to be very proud of their republic. I think it's a defence mechanism to avoid admitting that their country was founded by traitors and based on treason.

The reality is that a constitutional monarch is a far better defence against government than a constitution. Our Queen has no power whatsoever, except in the eventuality that the entire country is about to revolt, and supports her over whatever lunatic government is in power. It has just the same effect as a constitution, only without all the needless Supreme Court shilly-shallying.

Of course, what really swings it here is that, thanks to the exigencies of history, our royal family actually pays us for the privilege.

[Have you noticed that I don't take this subject entirely seriously?]

Mosqvich > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:04

0

Italy is in shambles (from what I read). The rest are doing well, they just don't quite have a soul and I've to all of these countries except Italy. I'm not saying a monarch is the answer, but if you have it, make it work for you. Don't throw away your history. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Mosqvich > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:05

0

We can agree on that! France's president and Italy's leaders in general. Or even Bill Clinton.

GhostZ > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:09

0

They have a constitution, representatives, a senate, and the greatest power the King has is commanding the arms forces.

They're an effective democracy all ready. This is just a matter of semantics.

GhostZ > Mosqvich 06/08/2014 at 18:10

1

The King or Queen's job is to pull attention off of the President or Prime Minister.

In the US, most (if not all) powers that any constitutional monarch has are given to the President as commander in chief.

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > davedave1111 06/08/2014 at 18:11

1

Traitors? I don't remember the Colonial United States having representatives in the British Parliament, Britain tried to treat Americans like they were Indians(you know, from India), and it paid the price.

Also, with enough hard work and dedication(and a shitload of luck), any American can theoretically be a judge in the supreme court, or president, or secretary of state. But getting in the royal family, good luck with that. A republic gives people the hope(and in same cases, the illusion) that they are in charge.

dsigned001 - O.R.C. hunter > thebigbossyboss 06/08/2014 at 18:13

0

Even in Thailand the king is primarily a figurehead (but one whose opinion kind of matters).

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > Cé hé sin 06/08/2014 at 18:14

0

Norway is not like other countries. They are not even in the EU and stuff, because they don't want to.

GhostZ > davedave1111 06/08/2014 at 18:16

0

People from the US are proud of our republic because we are told to be. More people take pride in the fact that we are "traitors" and "treasonous" than not. You have to remember that in US schools, American history is presented as "Britain claimed this land and send troops here, but we just wanted to sit on it and make money. When they started taking our money and sticking soldiers in our houses, we got pissed off and did some pretty fucking amazing things."

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:18

0

You do realise I'm at least 95% joking, right? But politics is all about twisting things into the most favourable light, so let's twist.

The fact is, your lot were all subjects of a country they rebelled against. That was treason, whichever way you look at it.

And frankly, who'd want to be Queen? We give it to some poor sucker born into it. You have to actually give your figurehead real power to get anyone to do the job, which is a definite downside.

davedave1111 > GhostZ 06/08/2014 at 18:29

0

Exactly. However much you lot might pretend, the fact is that you still have no-one's head to put on your coins, your notes, or your stamps. You squandered that right for a mess of potage (and a continent).

Cé hé sin > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:29

0

Course they're different. They're sitting on oil and gas with nothing to do other than pump it ashore and count their billions.

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:32

0

Those maps are rather silly, because they don't account for constitutional monarchies.

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > davedave1111 06/08/2014 at 18:35

0

Oh, so the English revolutionaries were traitors too? Lol. And England is a monarchy now, only because Cromwell's political skills were nowhere near his military and commanding skills. And because he had no political ideas or models to base his power on, Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was based on the ideas of the philosophers from the Age of Reason. Because of those ideas, George Washington was smart enough not to proclaim himself king.

Napoleon and Otto Von Bismarck had all the power at some point in France and Germany, they could've become the George Washington of their countries, but they blew that opportunity away.

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:40

0

"Oh, so the English revolutionaries were traitors too? "

Yes, of course. Heads chopped off and stuck on a pole in Westminster, and so-on. Eventually, when the king got back in power. Had to dig Cromwell's body up to do it, but weren't going to let that one go.

"the philosophers from the Age of Reason"

Also known as 'the guys who won the Civil War... and then lost anyway'.

"Napoleon and Otto Von Bismarck had all the power at some point in France and Germany"

I think you mean Germany or France. Hitler held power in both. What was your point again?

[To remind you, I don't take this seriously. Do you?]

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:41

0

Yes they do, there are not other types of monarchy in Europe, right now.

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > davedave1111 06/08/2014 at 18:45

0

Dead presidents, yo!

Also, Eurodollars seem to do well without faces on them and stuff.

GhostZ > davedave1111 06/08/2014 at 18:46

0

Bitch, this head is fabulous.

I do think if there's one major misconception that people have, it's that there's a HUGE divide been the US during the revolution, and when it was an actual government. The modern US government, formal military, courts, etc. wasn't really unified as a single entity until the War of 1812 (the best thing that ever happened to the US, without it we probably would have torn ourselves apart) and the modern financial system wasn't developed until 1933. The most powerful non-military branches of the government , the FDA, EPA, SEC, CIA, FBI, and IRS, were all formed 1930, 1970, 1934, 1947, 1908, and 1862 respectively. Only the IRS and FBI are over 100 years old.

Worse yet, some people think that the US was just born as a world power after being formed. During the civil war (1860s) the US was still a largely ungoverned wasteland of wilderness and free land. It wasn't until the late 1800s that we got our shit together enough to make money, and that's when we realized that with trade barriers falling and resources becoming scarce, owning a massive country full of untapped resources was extremely profitable. We started an industrial boom in the late 1800s that let us start funding other people's wars. We grew so fast that all of the unforeseen economic problems (unforeseen because no one had ever even thought they were possible, economics is a very young science) caused the great depression. I'd say that the US wasn't a definitive "superpower" until post-WWI and defintely not a world hegemon until WWII.

But it's generally taught in elementary school that the US has pretty much always been a powerful economic juggernaut of political stability, which just simply isn't true. For 150 of it's 230-year existence, the US was basically a gathering of bickering agrarian territories and profit-oriented resource businesses (Wood, Oil, Labor, etc.) who agreed to share an army, nothing more.

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 18:51

0

Soon as you put the President's face on money, might as well call him king and be done with it.'S'not like they all go on there, is it?

"Eurodollars seem to do well"

Well no-one's said that since the credit crunch... bdum-tsh

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > davedave1111 06/08/2014 at 18:55

0

A bit, I like to imagine how one little change in history would've changed the world. And how France and Germany becoming republics would've change a lot of the recent history. But again, you can't be too serious when you go into 'what if's'.

davedave1111 > GhostZ 06/08/2014 at 18:59

0

Or, to put that another way: after the original traitors overthrew their king, they found that actually running a country wasn't as easy as they thought; it wasn't until a couple of generations later, having settled on the semi-mythical figurehead of Washington to serve them in place of a king, that they started to get their shit together.

The fact that constitutional amendments exist kind of proves the point about Washington. The constitution isn't actually any protection at all unless the people insist it is, just as with royal assent, and it can be changed as and when the people see fit. When amendment is proposed, people ask themselves 'what would Washington do?', and the imaginary figure automatically represents the will of the people.

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > davedave1111 06/08/2014 at 19:01

0

You won't call your dog, a cat, just because you accidentally fed it cat food. Right?

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 19:06

0

The funny thing is, when it comes down to it it's all a matter of economics. The details come down to individuals, but the when and why is all about the money. So often you end up with things coming down to some very small decisions taken by individuals with a lot of power, that tipped things one way or another.

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 19:08

0

I don't call one of my dogs 'king' because everyone says to, either. Why Washington and not Nixon?

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > davedave1111 06/08/2014 at 19:23

0

Because like Washington, Napoleon and Bismarck were in power and in important situations, when they had to decide between monarchy and liberal republics. Nixon had to decide between being a jerk or not.

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 19:26

0

So that's in your laws somewhere? The constitution? 'We will put on our money the head of the guy who decided between monarchy and liberal republic'?

Or is it just something people decide on by going with what 'everyone knows'?

It's all fairytales.

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > davedave1111 06/08/2014 at 19:57

0

I wasn't talking about the money thing, I was talking about the comparison between Washington, Napoleon and Bismarck and how one did the right thing and the other two took rather conservative approaches.

On the money thing, I guess that they pick the presidents with the most historic significance and popularity.

davedave1111 > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/08/2014 at 19:59

0

Who picks? Significance? Popularity? Those are in the constitution, are they?

El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! > davedave1111 06/09/2014 at 08:16

0

The Secretary of the Treasury usually selects the designs shown on United States currency. Unless specified by an Act of Congress, the Secretary generally has the final approval. This is done with the advice of Bureau of Engraving and Printing(BEP) officials.

The law prohibits portraits of living persons from appearing on Government Securities. Therefore, the portraits on our currency notes are of deceased persons whose places in history the American people know well.

As stated by the The Department of the Treasury .

So, in other words, you have to be dead, to appear on American money.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > El Relámpago(LZone) - Humanity First! 06/09/2014 at 14:24

0

Traitors can only apply if one thinks that the Dominion was to acquiesce to London their entire bank accounts without whimper.

Or did that Englishman think that we don't remember the Stamp Act (1765)?

However, this being said, it is most certainly true that this Republic cannot and will not withstand the continual and perpetual neglect of the citizenry.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > GhostZ 06/09/2014 at 14:46

0

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

GhostZ > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 06/09/2014 at 14:50

0

What's the context that the quote is being used here for?

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > GhostZ 06/09/2014 at 14:54

0

This was the ending of the indictment of George III in the Declaration of Independence. The point being that not having a living head to mint onto coins was the least of our problems, considering that virtual representation in Parliament is no representation at all.

Hence, abdication of government is cause a priori to remove said government.

But that's something that the resident Englishman conveniently forgets on this thread.

GhostZ > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 06/09/2014 at 14:57

0

So did you mean to reply to Davedave111 or me?

I'm of the opinion that terrible logistics, poorly understood societies, and negligence of duty caused the revolution, but it took 20 years for any semblence of a government to form, it took another 30 years (1812) for it to be united enough to defend itself, another 50 years (1860) for it to have a strong enough federal force to keep it from fighting itself, and another 70 years after that (1930) before the US because the "US" as we know it today in its government structure. The modern neo-capitalist hegemon superpower econ-state that we call the United States of America is only about 60-70 years old at most. WWI and II, the War of 1812, and the industrial revolution are the reasons the USA is the most influential country in the world, not the very loosely defined government structure put forth back in the late 1700s.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > GhostZ 06/09/2014 at 15:07

0

I was agreeing with you :) Hence replying to you was the intent. You can see from the Englishman that pointing out the foibles of virtual representation in Parliament that they didn't learn that lesson in time, as they pulled the exact same move with India.

On an aside, one could make the point that the change in government structure from the time of T. Roosevelt to F. Roosevelt was a change that ultimately would make the constitutional safeguards less meaningful, but also was responsible for giving the government enough flexibility to be able to intervene in the Second World War the way they did.

The modern United States can really draw its start post War Between The States, during Reconstruction. The financial base which is what gave the US economy the ability to dominate the way it has post WWII, is from 1913. That would be the Federal Reserve (sometimes called The Creature from Jekyll Island).

1913 is what really could be considered the start of the Modern Era in the US, since without the Federal Reserve, history would be, well, quite different.

GhostZ > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 06/09/2014 at 15:13

0

I would argue that the Federal Reserve isn't the real change, but the New Deal regulations (SEC) after the great depression is the biggest, since it created a real system that the Fed operates in more efficiently. Before that, we just had tons of labor and work but not enough regulation to keep from massive fraud and abuse.