Well then I feel discriminated against so that nullifies you
We just disagree. I don't think that the head of state or monarch should be required to be Catholic or anything else. I think they should have the opportunity to be whatever they want.
Well then I feel discriminated against so that nullifies you
We just disagree. I don't think that the head of state or monarch should be required to be Catholic or anything else. I think they should have the opportunity to be whatever they want.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Well then I feel discriminated against so that nullifies you
We just disagree. I don't think that the head of state or monarch should be Catholic. I think they should have the opportunity to be whatever they want.
You have said that you are against the monarchy regardless of the rules of succession and you cite the support of the mobs in Quebec as reason not for the reform of the Succession Laws but as reason to abolish it totally.
Digging through all of the red herrings that you throw out at me I reach the core that is:
1. You are against the Monarchy and your objective is its eradification.
2. You do not support mob rule unless the objectives of the mob coincide with yours and in that case you support mob rule.
which basically means that you support mob rule.
Oh yeah. Are you from California? Because your style of mobacracy sounds like that of California where politicians whip up the mob to help them get what they want.
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Well then I feel discriminated against so that nullifies you
We just disagree. I don't think that the head of state or monarch should be Catholic. I think they should have the opportunity to be whatever they want.
You have said that you are against the monarchy regardless of the rules of succession and you cite the support of the mobs in Quebec as reason not for the reform of the Succession Laws but as reason to abolish it totally.
Digging through all of the red herrings that you throw out at me I reach the core that is:
1. You are against the Monarchy and your objective is its eradification.
2. You do not support mob rule unless the objectives of the mob coincide with yours and in that case you support mob rule.
which basically means that you support mob rule.
Yes, I am against all monarchies in every form. I think it's discriminatory in nature.
No, I am neither for or against mob rule. There are more factors that need to be in play and realized. I think of it as a complicated equation
Your argument boiled down to mob rule. If people want slavery, they can have it. If people want a genocide, they can have it. If 95% of Slovenia voted to strip certain minorities of rights, should they have it? If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
I believe that there are certain rights and ideas that cannot/ shouldn't be reached by humans or mob rule. Those include slavery, racism, discrimination, etc.
Please answer this question: If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Well then I feel discriminated against so that nullifies you
We just disagree. I don't think that the head of state or monarch should be Catholic. I think they should have the opportunity to be whatever they want.
You have said that you are against the monarchy regardless of the rules of succession and you cite the support of the mobs in Quebec as reason not for the reform of the Succession Laws but as reason to abolish it totally.
Digging through all of the red herrings that you throw out at me I reach the core that is:
1. You are against the Monarchy and your objective is its eradification.
2. You do not support mob rule unless the objectives of the mob coincide with yours and in that case you support mob rule.
which basically means that you support mob rule.
Yes, I am against all monarchies in every form. I think it's discriminatory in nature.
No, I am neither for or against mob rule. There are more factors that need to be in play and realized. I think of it as a complicated equation
Your argument boiled down to mob rule. If people want slavery, they can have it. If people want a genocide, they can have it. If 95% of Slovenia voted to strip certain minorities of rights, should they have it? If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
I believe that there are certain rights and ideas that cannot/ shouldn't be reached by humans or mob rule. Those include slavery, racism, discrimination, etc.
Please answer this question: If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
No personally I feel people should have no right to abolish the Monarchy regardless of how many may support such an abolition. I feel the appointed senate in Canada is a good thing because it can counterbalance the House of Commons which could be vulnerable to populist influences. I feel that there should be an unelected element in any legislative process (such as the federal Judiciary in the US, the Monarchy, Senate, and Judiciary in Canada) so as to counter the effects of the mob. A majority of Canadian support the Monarchy, good for them. A majority of Australians are against it? Tough cheese, its not their decision.
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Well then I feel discriminated against so that nullifies you
We just disagree. I don't think that the head of state or monarch should be Catholic. I think they should have the opportunity to be whatever they want.
You have said that you are against the monarchy regardless of the rules of succession and you cite the support of the mobs in Quebec as reason not for the reform of the Succession Laws but as reason to abolish it totally.
Digging through all of the red herrings that you throw out at me I reach the core that is:
1. You are against the Monarchy and your objective is its eradification.
2. You do not support mob rule unless the objectives of the mob coincide with yours and in that case you support mob rule.
which basically means that you support mob rule.
Yes, I am against all monarchies in every form. I think it's discriminatory in nature.
No, I am neither for or against mob rule. There are more factors that need to be in play and realized. I think of it as a complicated equation
Your argument boiled down to mob rule. If people want slavery, they can have it. If people want a genocide, they can have it. If 95% of Slovenia voted to strip certain minorities of rights, should they have it? If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
I believe that there are certain rights and ideas that cannot/ shouldn't be reached by humans or mob rule. Those include slavery, racism, discrimination, etc.
Please answer this question: If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
No personally I feel people should have no right to abolish the Monarchy regardless of how many may support such an abolition. I feel the appointed senate in Canada is a good thing because it can counterbalance the House of Commons which could be vulnerable to populist influences. I feel that there should be an unelected element in any legislative process (such as the federal Judiciary in the US, the Monarchy, Senate, and Judiciary in Canada) so as to counter the effects of the mob. A majority of Canadian support the Monarchy, good for them. A majority of Australians are against it? Tough cheese, its not their decision.
Well, one of my points was that you can still have the appointment of a position with all the powers of the monarch, but they'll be chosen based upon qualifications, and there won't be any discrimination involved.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Well then I feel discriminated against so that nullifies you
We just disagree. I don't think that the head of state or monarch should be Catholic. I think they should have the opportunity to be whatever they want.
You have said that you are against the monarchy regardless of the rules of succession and you cite the support of the mobs in Quebec as reason not for the reform of the Succession Laws but as reason to abolish it totally.
Digging through all of the red herrings that you throw out at me I reach the core that is:
1. You are against the Monarchy and your objective is its eradification.
2. You do not support mob rule unless the objectives of the mob coincide with yours and in that case you support mob rule.
which basically means that you support mob rule.
Yes, I am against all monarchies in every form. I think it's discriminatory in nature.
No, I am neither for or against mob rule. There are more factors that need to be in play and realized. I think of it as a complicated equation
Your argument boiled down to mob rule. If people want slavery, they can have it. If people want a genocide, they can have it. If 95% of Slovenia voted to strip certain minorities of rights, should they have it? If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
I believe that there are certain rights and ideas that cannot/ shouldn't be reached by humans or mob rule. Those include slavery, racism, discrimination, etc.
Please answer this question: If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
No personally I feel people should have no right to abolish the Monarchy regardless of how many may support such an abolition. I feel the appointed senate in Canada is a good thing because it can counterbalance the House of Commons which could be vulnerable to populist influences. I feel that there should be an unelected element in any legislative process (such as the federal Judiciary in the US, the Monarchy, Senate, and Judiciary in Canada) so as to counter the effects of the mob. A majority of Canadian support the Monarchy, good for them. A majority of Australians are against it? Tough cheese, its not their decision.
Well, one of my points was that you can still have the appointment of a position with all the powers of the monarch, but they'll be chosen based upon qualifications, and there won't be any discrimination involved.
Appointed by whom?
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Well then I feel discriminated against so that nullifies you
We just disagree. I don't think that the head of state or monarch should be Catholic. I think they should have the opportunity to be whatever they want.
You have said that you are against the monarchy regardless of the rules of succession and you cite the support of the mobs in Quebec as reason not for the reform of the Succession Laws but as reason to abolish it totally.
Digging through all of the red herrings that you throw out at me I reach the core that is:
1. You are against the Monarchy and your objective is its eradification.
2. You do not support mob rule unless the objectives of the mob coincide with yours and in that case you support mob rule.
which basically means that you support mob rule.
Yes, I am against all monarchies in every form. I think it's discriminatory in nature.
No, I am neither for or against mob rule. There are more factors that need to be in play and realized. I think of it as a complicated equation
Your argument boiled down to mob rule. If people want slavery, they can have it. If people want a genocide, they can have it. If 95% of Slovenia voted to strip certain minorities of rights, should they have it? If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
I believe that there are certain rights and ideas that cannot/ shouldn't be reached by humans or mob rule. Those include slavery, racism, discrimination, etc.
Please answer this question: If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
No personally I feel people should have no right to abolish the Monarchy regardless of how many may support such an abolition. I feel the appointed senate in Canada is a good thing because it can counterbalance the House of Commons which could be vulnerable to populist influences. I feel that there should be an unelected element in any legislative process (such as the federal Judiciary in the US, the Monarchy, Senate, and Judiciary in Canada) so as to counter the effects of the mob. A majority of Canadian support the Monarchy, good for them. A majority of Australians are against it? Tough cheese, its not their decision.
Well, one of my points was that you can still have the appointment of a position with all the powers of the monarch, but they'll be chosen based upon qualifications, and there won't be any discrimination involved.
Appointed by whom?
Who knows? However they decide. Maybe it can be a lottery. Maybe the senate appoints the position. Maybe people can take a test and the best person can have the position.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: ejseidel
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Well then I feel discriminated against so that nullifies you
We just disagree. I don't think that the head of state or monarch should be Catholic. I think they should have the opportunity to be whatever they want.
You have said that you are against the monarchy regardless of the rules of succession and you cite the support of the mobs in Quebec as reason not for the reform of the Succession Laws but as reason to abolish it totally.
Digging through all of the red herrings that you throw out at me I reach the core that is:
1. You are against the Monarchy and your objective is its eradification.
2. You do not support mob rule unless the objectives of the mob coincide with yours and in that case you support mob rule.
which basically means that you support mob rule.
Yes, I am against all monarchies in every form. I think it's discriminatory in nature.
No, I am neither for or against mob rule. There are more factors that need to be in play and realized. I think of it as a complicated equation
Your argument boiled down to mob rule. If people want slavery, they can have it. If people want a genocide, they can have it. If 95% of Slovenia voted to strip certain minorities of rights, should they have it? If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
I believe that there are certain rights and ideas that cannot/ shouldn't be reached by humans or mob rule. Those include slavery, racism, discrimination, etc.
Please answer this question: If the majority of Americans supported that the President's spouse had to be Buddhist, would you support it?
No personally I feel people should have no right to abolish the Monarchy regardless of how many may support such an abolition. I feel the appointed senate in Canada is a good thing because it can counterbalance the House of Commons which could be vulnerable to populist influences. I feel that there should be an unelected element in any legislative process (such as the federal Judiciary in the US, the Monarchy, Senate, and Judiciary in Canada) so as to counter the effects of the mob. A majority of Canadian support the Monarchy, good for them. A majority of Australians are against it? Tough cheese, its not their decision.
Well, one of my points was that you can still have the appointment of a position with all the powers of the monarch, but they'll be chosen based upon qualifications, and there won't be any discrimination involved.
Appointed by whom?
Who knows? However they decide. Maybe it can be a lottery. Maybe the senate appoints the position.
Okay then, perhaps by the lottery of birth? Would that be sufficient? You are born to a certain person and get the job? Would that be a sufficient lottery in your eyes?
Probably not. That sort of keeps it within a caste. Those were just wild ideas. There's a lot they can do if you even want to preserve the extra non-elected position of power. I also edited my post and added a test possibility. There are a lot of possibilities!
What is wrong with my lottery idea? Any lottery would create a 'castes' of those who won and those who lost.
Yes. There many ways in which to create a substandard system.
The question still stands: Appointed by whom?
Well, if it was a lottery that included everyone, then that could be a strange possibility. Your lottery chose a family (at least that's what I'm assuming) and restricted it to that line forever.
I don't know who it can be appointed by. Like I said, they can be creative.
Sacrifice stability for creativity? Wonderfull idea. Who cares if the system is worse now because the republicans can finally sleep more soundly at night! After all is not that what is truly important?
Perhaps it is time we begin discussion on how Juan Carlos I of Spain brought democracy to his country after Franco's death and how his quick action was instremental in suppressing a fascist coup de etat attempt?
This was already discussed in this thread. Someone mentioned Mussolini.
Anyways, with your desire the keep the position of a non-elected powerful figure, it basically has the same advantages of a monarchy without many of the disadvantages.
It doesn't have anything to do with it. It's a counter-argument to your example.
What does Juan Carlos have to do with Canada?
Anyways, with your desire the keep the position of a non-elected powerful figure, it basically has the same advantages of a monarchy without many of the disadvantages.
I thought this thread was about the institution of Monarchy and its advantages and disadvantages? Well I was putting forward an advantage.
And my point is a disadvantage. Have you read this thread? It was already brought up.
Since your entire argument is having this position that is a political fire extinguisher, you can still have this position without the monarchy, as mentioned multiple times. You can have all of the benefits without many of the negatives.
No you can't, because the 'fire extinguisher' would be a politician! God I despise those creatures! The position of head of state would be open to politicall games because politicians would be able to influence the selection!
We in the US of course tend to worship our politicians as demi-gods. God I wish we had a monarchy in the stead of that disgusting arrangement!
Why are you saying it would be a politician? It can be anyone. I don't know how they would be more susceptible than current monarchs or heads of state. Like I said, maybe it can be done with a test where the head of state wouldn't be susceptible to political games.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter