Royal Baby in UK

[MishaK]

I really don't understand all this hatred against, and bashing of, monarchy and monarchs, especially when it comes from people who are not citizens of a monarchic country...

What's there not to understand about disdain for the adulation of people who have ammassed great wealth and power through no merit or hard work of their own, instead inheriting such wealth and power derived from the rent seeking behavior of their (usually brutal) forebears? Why should any state in the 21st century continue to publicly subsidize this pageantry?

[Florestan]

Why should any state in the 21st century continue to publicly subsidize this pageantry?

Because that's the will of the majority of their citizens? Something called democracy...

With all due respect, you are a US-citizen (though not US-born). Your concern about Great Britain being  a monarchy is somehow misplaced, don't you think?

[Parsifal]

With all due respect, you are a US-citizen (though not US-born). Your concern about Great Britain being  a monarchy is somehow misplaced, don't you think?

Then from now on you will only comment on events that occur in Romania?

[Florestan]

Then from now on you will only comment on events that occur in Romania?

Have you ever read my comments about what constitutional arrangement the US of A, or any other country in the world,  should have? If the citizens of Great Britain, or Norway, or Spain or [you name any monrachy you want] want to live in a monarchy, then so be it. It's their business, not yours. 

[Karl Henning]

What's there not to understand about disdain for the adulation of people who have ammassed great wealth and power through no merit or hard work of their own, instead inheriting such wealth and power derived from the rent seeking behavior of their (usually brutal) forebears? Why should any state in the 21st century continue to publicly subsidize this pageantry?

Let's set aside for the moment any rhetorically tendentious phrasing of the question. Why should it continue?  Pride in the nation's history, a people's sense of themselves.  I am by disposition inclined to resist iconoclasm;  it is in part that Yankee sense of don't tear a fence down until you know why it was put up.

[Florestan]

Pride in the nation's history, a people's sense of themselves.  I am by disposition inclined to resist iconoclasm;  it is in part that Yankee sense of don't tear a fence down until you know why it was put up.

(*pounds the table*).

Surgically done, Karl! 

[MishaK]

Because that's the will of the majority of their citizens? Something called democracy...

Why should it continue?  Pride in the nation's history, a people's sense of themselves.  I am by disposition inclined to resist iconoclasm;  it is in part that Yankee sense of don't tear a fence down until you know why it was put up.

If the citizens of Great Britain, or Norway, or Spain or [you name any monrachy you want] want to live in a monarchy, then so be it. It's their business, not yours. 

I'm in principle fine with that. But all those who on the one hand want to claim that it is their democratic right to choose to live in an undemocratic structure should not be surprised if I then use my democratic right to free speech to mock their ludiucrously incongruous ideas of self-governance and wasteful allocation of finite public resources.

See, if democracy is in and of itself an ideal to be upheld (which you both implicitly assume), then exercising democratic rights for undemocratic ends should rightfully be at least criticized, if not sanctioned, for the sake of preserving the right which these proponents use to advocate for a system that undercuts that very right. It's quite silly.

[Karl Henning]

Of course, I have no quarrel at all with there being more than one opinion brought forward.  A voice of dissent, though, benefits more from sound argument than from a tone of mockery.  One is inarguably free to mock;  mockery of itself may not command any particular respect.  I think that is one reason why certain artifacts of pop culture, whose "criticism" of religion is little more than mockery of religion, do not age particularly well, for instance.

[pencils]

The problem with the argument that the majority of UK citizens support a constitutional monarchy, is that it cannot be asserted in good conscience. As a UK citizen, I can assure you that it is neither a democratic choice to perpetuate the current system, nor even close to being uniformly popular. It is a hugely inequitable and immovable reality with which some are happy and others oppose vehemently.

[Parsifal]

Of course, I have no quarrel at all with there being more than one opinion brought forward.  A voice of dissent, though, benefits more from sound argument than from a tone of mockery.  One is inarguably free to mock;  mockery of itself may not command any particular respect.  I think that is one reason why certain artifacts of pop culture, whose "criticism" of religion is little more than mockery of religion, do not age particularly well, for instance.

Out of this, you get defensive about religion again?  We get it, if you label a belief a 'religion' no one is allowed to make fun of it. 

[pencils]

Out of this, you get defensive about religion again?  We get it, if you label a belief a 'religion' no one is allowed to make fun of it.

I think his point was more that a constructive argument carries more weight and longevity than mockery or insults.

But what do I know?

[Karl Henning]

Out of this, you get defensive about religion again?  We get it, if you label a belief a 'religion' no one is allowed to make fun of it. 

Where was I defensive?

[MishaK]

Of course, I have no quarrel at all with there being more than one opinion brought forward.  A voice of dissent, though, benefits more from sound argument than from a tone of mockery.  One is inarguably free to mock;  mockery of itself may not command any particular respect.  I think that is one reason why certain artifacts of pop culture, whose "criticism" of religion is little more than mockery of religion, do not age particularly well, for instance.

I would have to echo Scarpia here. Also, mockery, satire, irony are all well known, well used and very often quite effective methods of exposing the emperor's lack of clothes. Indeed many examples of the art of satire have survived the ages quite well (while the subjects of their mockery went down in ignominy). Do yourself a favor, though, and don't just group all practitioners of those methods together as if the use of that method had anything to do with the merits of their disparate arguments on diverse matters. It's like saying we're all guilty of each others' sinse because we all happen to breathe oxygen.

I think his point was more that a constructive argument carries more weight and longevity than mockery or insults.

Nowhere did I insult anyone.

[Karl Henning]

The problem with the argument that the majority of UK citizens support a constitutional monarchy, is that it cannot be asserted in good conscience. As a UK citizen, I can assure you that it is neither a democratic choice to perpetuate the current system, nor even close to being uniformly popular. It is a hugely inequitable and immovable reality with which some are happy and others oppose vehemently.

Thanks for your post!  Even here from the States, I see it as something of a tangle.

[Karl Henning]

I would have to echo Scarpia here.

Then I put the question to you: Where was I defensive?

[MishaK]

Then I put the question to you: Where was I defensive?

Approximately here:

Of course, I have no quarrel at all with there being more than one opinion brought forward.  A voice of dissent, though, benefits more from sound argument than from a tone of mockery.  One is inarguably free to mock;  mockery of itself may not command any particular respect.  I think that is one reason why certain artifacts of pop culture, whose "criticism" of religion is little more than mockery of religion, do not age particularly well, for instance.

Hard not to read it that way, since you gratuitously brought up a subject that wasn't the target of any ridicule and then associated me with the likes of whateverhisnamethedudewhowritesabouttheSpaghettiMonster.

[pencils]

Nowhere did I insult anyone.

Not suggesting that you did. I meant as a general principle 

[Parsifal]

Hard not to read it that way, since you gratuitously brought up a subject that wasn't the target of any ridicule and then associated me with the likes of whateverhisnamethedudewhowritesabouttheSpaghettiMonster.

Quite so. 

[Karl Henning]

Approximately here:

Hard not to read it that way, since you gratuitously brought up a subject that wasn't the target of any ridicule and then associated me with the likes of whateverhisnamethedudewhowritesabouttheSpaghettiMonster.

I think you may be the defensive party here.  I apologize if you took my remarks as pointed to yourself.

Mockery, and the recorder, are both famously easy to play, but not everyone is an artist.

If you have an argument against monarchy which is not mere mockery, I should be most interested to hear it.

[MishaK]

If you have an argument against monarchy which is not mere mockery, I should be most interested to hear it.[/font]

I refer you back to this:

See, if democracy is in and of itself an ideal to be upheld (which you both implicitly assume), then exercising democratic rights for undemocratic ends should rightfully be at least criticized, if not sanctioned, for the sake of preserving the right which these proponents use to advocate for a system that undercuts that very right.