The save the wild life so that I can shoot it merchant has retired, oh wow.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought the 'although other countries have monarchies of all sorts, ours is, I will assert(!), unique and is in a separate category of its own.' was a nod in the direction of tu quoque by justifying monarchy on the basis that other countries had monarchies too (though, allegedly, ours is special).

I read it more as a strawman that someone was claiming that the monarchy was not unique, an irrelevant strawman at that since it may well be but uniqueness isn't an argument in favour.

[Anchorman]

You don't have to acknowledge or defer to them. Personally I couldn't give a fig for the monarchy however, so far on this thread, Susan has held up admirably. Logic has been invoked in vain, but not one good argument against the institution has actually been put has it?

It is a piece of decorative tat that people want to pay for, so why would you want to stop them?

-
Sorry, but were I to serve in the armed forces, police, or be elected to Parliament - either Holyrood or Westminster - I could not do so without swearing allegiance, not to a country, not even to a so-called united kingdom, but to an unelected individual who holds their title through genetics.
Please justify this situation.

[Gordon]

I read it more as a strawman that someone was claiming that the monarchy was not unique, an irrelevant strawman at that since it may well be but uniqueness isn't an argument in favour.

Works that way too, or even special pleading (the 'unique' comment) - I don't think Susan has justified her support for the monarchy beyond that she approves of it.

[ippy]

I did hear that the royal lot cost each one of us 66 pence, or there abouts, a year, apart from keeping the buildings going as a part of our history, I object to paying that lot one penny, it's not the amount it's the principle.

It's no small wonder the Greek bloke is over 90 now, I wonder how much longer a lot of us would live if we'd had the ground swept in front of us everywhere we went, had a limo take us anywhere that was more than two or three paces in front of us had all of the best of foods for all of our lives and no worries about where we can get the best education for our children, just because you happen to be born to the right? Family.

If we started to cheer a a plate of wet tripe it'd be about as stupidly brain dead as cheering that lot, I'll save my cheers for those that have achieved and are worth it.

What is it about these people that make otherwise sensible people almost worship them. 

As for spoiling a good day out, my arse, some things are so obviously wrong?

ippy

[Udayana]

Because it symbolizes inequality, hierarchy, and inherited wealth.   And deference.

It does, but people are attached to the symbolism. If a new system was being designed then certainly these may be concerns, but there is no overriding edict against inequality, hierarchy or inherited wealth. Most of our new laws support these in one form or other (despite the speeches).

To overturn the existing constitution you need a republican mandate and I don't think most of the arguments are strong enough to build one - though possibly this could be formed in Scotland as part of the bid for independence?

[Udayana]

Because as I covered a couple of times that contribute to a system  of inequality that contributes to sclerotic approach to democracy in the UK. I am happy if you want to day why that isn't a good argument but just saying there are no good arguments is hardly useful.

But our constitution is democratic and could be changed democratically* - a good argument is one that would persuade people to vote for a republic.  Pointing out that the constitution contributes to inequality or is not properly democratic is not good enough - most people don't care and would rather keep to tradition and established symbolism.

* Of-course there is no perfect democratic system, let alone one that can define it's own constitution fully democratically, but assuming that what we have is good enough.

[Nearly Sane]

But our constitution is democratic and could be changed democratically* - a good argument is one that would persuade people to vote for a republic.  Pointing out that the constitution contributes to inequality or is not properly democratic is not good enough - most people don't care and would rather keep to tradition and established symbolism.

* Of-course there is no perfect democratic system, let alone one that can define it's own constitution fully democratically, but assuming that what we have is good enough.

You seem to be defining 'good' here as ones that people agree with. This when we had slavery the good argument was anything in favour if slavery, including that some people might want to rape a slave. I don't agree with your definition of 'giid' as it is then simply the ad populum fallacy.

[Udayana]

I pointed out that it was undemocratic since they enjoy privilege within our governance system without accountability since we didn't elect them and there is no current option to remove them: I'd say that alone was sufficient argument for getting rid.

As far as I can see the only argument offered by the pro-monarchists here is a fallacious argument from tradition.

Well what is a soundly based logical argument argument against monarchy, or dictatorship even? ... I can't see that there is one. You have to start somewhere with a set of incontrovertible rules eg as in the preamble to the US constitution. What goes into that is not logic but based on how people feel about things.

[Udayana]

You seem to he defining 'goid' here as ones that people agree with. This when we had slavery the good argument was anything in favour if slavery, including that some people might want to rape a slave. I don't agree with your definition of 'giid' as it is then simply the ad populum fallacy.

Well democracy is an "ad populum" itself. Slavery was not abolished due to a logical argument or proof.

[Nearly Sane]

Well democracy is an "ad populum" itself. Slavery was not abolished due to a logical argument or proof.

No, democracy isn't an ad populum, since it doesn't claim that the argument is good in some external sense. You are getting confused here by people using language differently in different contexts.


You are, of course, correct that you cannot get an ought from an is but you can get to how to achieve an ought from an the assumption of some axioms, and those arguments are 'good' and 'logical' within those assumptions.  . Now again people are free to disagree with those axioms but we also continue discussions on here with a general presumption that some of those axioms have been accepted. I would suggest here that that has been what is being used here.


Now we could state in every debate on politics and morals what our initial axioms are, and see if there is any point in having discussions but I would suggest that is not how general discussions work.

[SusanDoris]

What is it about these people that make otherwise sensible people almost worship them. 

'worship'? Now that is a step too far!! I do not worship anything, nor have I ever done so.

Susan
]

[SusanDoris]

Well what is a soundly based logical argument argument against monarchy, or dictatorship even? ... I can't see that there is one. You have to start somewhere with a set of incontrovertible rules eg as in the preamble to the US constitution. What goes into that is not logic but based on how people feel about things.

Yeah!! Well said! 

If the Scots voted not to have the monarchy,I bet that, even if they set up check points at the border, there would still be coachloads of people taking mini-trips to see, for instance, a royal funeral, or the coronation of the next monarch!!!

And would those south of the border come in droves to see some newly elected Head of State for Scotland being driven in anordinary, however luxurious inside,  car to attend the ceremony? Especially if they knew said person would have to stand for re-election in a set period of years!

I'm enjoying this thread!!

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah!! Well said! 

If the Scots voted not to have the monarchy,I bet that, even if they set up check points at the border, there would still be coachloads of people taking mini-trips to see, for instance, a royal funeral, or the coronation of the next monarch!!!

And would those south of the border come in droves to see some newly elected Head of State for Scotland being driven in anordinary, however luxurious inside,  car to attend the ceremony? Especially if they knew said person would have to stand for re-election in a set period of years!

I'm enjoying this thread!!

And again the arguments here justify bear baiting and giving privileges to Christianity if people want that.

[Gordon]

Yeah!! Well said! 

If the Scots voted not to have the monarchy,I bet that, even if they set up check points at the border, there would still be coachloads of people taking mini-trips to see, for instance, a royal funeral, or the coronation of the next monarch!!!

So, that some people like something very much is sufficient reason to make what they like applicable to all by default?

And would those south of the border come in droves to see some newly elected Head of State for Scotland being driven in anordinary, however luxurious inside,  car to attend the ceremony? Especially if they knew said person would have to stand for re-election in a set period of years!

There's no accounting for taste, and you seem to be saying that someone who is elected and will be subject to re-election is less of a spectacle than the gold-coach driven frippery of monarchy - maybe so, but provided the elected person performs the elected role appropriately then spectacle doesn't matter.

Some of us don't see the opportunity to wave at someone passing in a car, or a gold coach, as something notable or that tradition alone justifies anything.

[SusanDoris]

So, that some people like something very much is sufficient reason to make what they like applicable to all by default?

On the contrary, as I said before, the monarchy and the way it functions today is, in my strongly held opinion, a one-off, and separate, category. It does not today initiate wars, it does not kill people, it is entertaining and the people concerned are flesh and blood, not fictional characters. I'll probably think up a few more things later on!

There's no accounting for taste, and you seem to be saying that someone who is elected and will be subject to re-election is less of a spectacle than the gold-coach driven frippery of monarchy - maybe so, but provided the elected person performs the elected role appropriately then spectacle doesn't matter.

academically, yes. But generally speaking, no.

If it had not been an integral part of our history, then it would not now be missed because it would not have been there, but that is not the reality of history and the present-day.

Some of us don't see the opportunity to wave at someone passing in a car, or a gold coach, as something notable or that tradition alone justifies anything.

Obviously!! And lucky we are to live in a country where we are free to choose.

[Gordon]

On the contrary, as I said before, the monarchy and the way it functions today is, in my strongly held opinion, a one-off, and separate, category.

That would be fine if it was discretionary, but it isn't, therefore it has general implications in relation to both political governance arrangements (e.g. the need for 'royal assent') and since it is funded via taxation.

It does not today initiate wars, it does not kill people, it is entertaining and the people concerned are flesh and blood, not fictional characters.

The same applies to professional tennis, yet it isn't mandatory nor is involved in political governance decisions.

If it had not been an integral part of our history, then it would not now be missed because it would not have been there, but that is not the reality of history and the present-day.Obviously!! And lucky we are to live in a country where we are free to choose.

But when it comes to the monarchy, given its default role in political governance and in being state funded, we don't have the choice.

[Anchorman]

On a wee aside, Gordon; You'll note that when Liz 'assents' to a bill in Westminster becoming law, she does so in Norman French....which is yet another snub to the lie of a 'united Kingdom'.

[ippy]

'worship'? Now that is a step too far!! I do not worship anything, nor have I ever done so.

Susan
]

Almost worship them!

Ippy

[Udayana]

No, democracy isn't an ad populum, since it doesn't claim that the argument is good in some external sense. You are getting confused here by people using language differently in different contexts.

Ok .. maybe should have said " a kind of" 

You are, of course, correct that you cannot get an ought from an is but you can get to how to achieve an ought from an the assumption of some axioms, and those arguments are 'good' and 'logical' within those assumptions.  . Now again people are free to disagree with those axioms but we also continue discussions on here with a general presumption that some of those axioms have been accepted. I would suggest here that that has been what is being used here.


Now we could state in every debate on politics and morals what our initial axioms are, and see if there is any point in having discussions but I would suggest that is not how general discussions work.

Generally yes, but would be appropriate before trying to overturn and replace the constitution - on which everything else depends.
 

[Udayana]

And again the arguments here justify bear baiting and giving privileges to Christianity if people want that.

True, also hunting, meat eating.. continued destruction of the environment.

People act when they understand the extent of the damage being caused. But difficult to see people turning against the monarchy which is seen as a successful and profitable (to the nation) business, constitutionally unable to interfere with government, with which many people have a traditional identification.

[Nearly Sane]

Ok .. maybe should have said " a kind of"  Generally yes, but would be appropriate before trying to overturn and replace the constitution - on which everything else depends.

No, it's not much use you change it to 'a kind of' The ad populum is about something being right simply because of the number. I can support democracy as a method of govt and happily accept that the decisions made by the majority can be wrong in my opinion.


Completely at a loss here as to why getting rid of the monarchy is as fundamental to what we think of as the basis axioms of what society should try to achieve.

[Nearly Sane]

True, also hunting, meat eating.. continued destruction of the environment.

People act when they understand the extent of the damage being caused. But difficult to see people turning against the monarchy which is seen as a successful and profitable (to the nation) business, constitutionally unable to interfere with government, with which many people have a traditional identification.

And those examples apply as well, what I was asking of Susan Doris was would she see these arguments as good in those situations. My take is that she wouldn't - I may be wrong on that but it seems in contradiction of her posting history. Of course, we don't have to accept that hypocrisy , as I would see this is wrong at a fundamental level, but again given SD's posting on other subjects I suspect that she isn't a fan of hypocrisy.

It was once difficult to see people turning against bear baiting, the only way I know how to make reasoned arguments to change someone's mind is to use why such things would be in conflict with basic axioms that you and they agree on.

[Udayana]

Yes, but equality is not one of the agreed basic axioms.

In fact, "inequality, hierarchy, and inherited wealth" do appear to be basic axioms.

Society only exits if there is a constitution and framework of rules, otherwise we are back to tribal warfare. The UK constitution is basically a series of agreements over time between monarchs and various rebel groups.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, but equality is not one of the agreed basic axioms.

In fact, "inequality, hierarchy, and inherited wealth" do appear to be basic axioms.

Society only exits if there is a constitution and framework of rules, otherwise we are back to tribal warfare. The UK constitution is basically a series of agreements over time between monarchs and various rebel groups.

There aren't any universally agreed axioms. But if you share them with someone then you can make sound arguments to them based upon them. There isn't a proposal from any one to remove all rules so I'm confused by your reference to it.

[Udayana]

Didn't mean to suggest anyone would remove all rules or that we would revert to no society.