Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    04 May '15 23:581 edit
    Why on Earth would we get rid of the monarchy??

    We MAKE billions off of it? [including tourism]

    The Monarch owns a huge amount of land/property, which generates hundreds of millions in income.

    In a deal done between the Monarch and Parliament, the income from that land goes to the
    exchequer. And in return the Royal Family gets paid a few tens of millions.

    If we abolished the monarchy, and stopped paying them, they would just take the profits from their
    land back. And cut hundreds of millions of the budget.

    The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained:
    CGP Grey

    YouTube&hd=1
  2. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    04 May '15 23:581 edit
    Originally posted by Seitse
    What are you still doing in my country, you leech?!
    He's in the imperial dominions of his Nordic cousins. What are you doing in HIS country?

    YouTube
  3. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    05 May '15 05:49
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Why on Earth would we get rid of the monarchy??
    Because there is something fundamentally wrong with granting someone privileges based on the family they were born into.
  4. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Mr. Wolf
    at home
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45668
    05 May '15 06:48
    Originally posted by googlefudge

    The Monarch owns a huge amount of land/property, which generates hundreds of millions in income.

    Take the land first.
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    05 May '15 09:232 edits
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    Take the land first.
    That would be illegal.

    What kind of country would you have us be?

    Because we should totally be the kind of place that forcibly takes peoples stuff for no good reason.

    I mean, how many other rich people in the UK essentially pay 80% taxes.

    We are demonising these people for what reason now?
  6. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    05 May '15 09:25
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Because there is something fundamentally wrong with granting someone privileges based on the family they were born into.
    Well if we were starting from scratch I wouldn't create a monarchy.

    We are not starting from scratch.
  7. Standard memberredbadger
    Suzzie says Badger
    is Racist Bastard
    Joined
    09 Jun '14
    Moves
    10079
    05 May '15 12:21
    Originally posted by bill718
    Seitse - Don't concern yourself about the monarchy in the U.K. It's not important. If the Brit's want to spend their tax money supporting a monarchy that's their business.
    many don't want their taxes going to support the monarchy but we have no choice we don't live in a Democratic country.
  8. Standard memberredbadger
    Suzzie says Badger
    is Racist Bastard
    Joined
    09 Jun '14
    Moves
    10079
    05 May '15 12:30
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Why on Earth would we get rid of the monarchy??

    We MAKE billions off of it? [including tourism]

    The Monarch owns a huge amount of land/property, which generates hundreds of millions in income.

    In a deal done between the Monarch and Parliament, the income from that land goes to the
    exchequer. And in return the Royal Family gets paid a few tens ...[text shortened]... ost of the Royal Family Explained:
    CGP Grey

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&hd=1
    Total rubbish
  9. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    05 May '15 12:48
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Well if we were starting from scratch I wouldn't create a monarchy.

    We are not starting from scratch.
    Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem,[1] appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[2]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
  10. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    05 May '15 12:55
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Appeal to tradition (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem,[1] appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it is correlated with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."[2]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
    No it's an appeal to practicality.

    Completely changing our current system of government and abolishing the monarchy
    for a system that is on net better than the one we have is a MASSIVE undertaking.

    Given the complete and utter lack of any pressing need, or outstanding injustice, that
    needs fixing. And the total lack of plausible BETTER alternatives on offer. My response
    is along the lines of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" or "we have a good enough solution as
    it is, and no clear reason to change it".

    I see no reason to waste time and money on making a change to the system that has
    no clear benefits, when we have so many actual problems that need fixing.

    I should also add that at present there is precisely no popular uprising or sentiment that
    this should be changed.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    05 May '15 13:09
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I see no reason to waste time and money on making a change to the system that has
    no clear benefits, when we have so many actual problems that need fixing.
    A false dilemma (also called black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
  12. Joined
    12 Jul '08
    Moves
    12477
    05 May '15 14:12
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Yes, support for a monarchy is quite typical of socialist thinking.
    Actually it really is. The only difference between the politician's cut and the royal's cut is that the politicians need to get elected while the royals get it by birth.

    In a Socialist state you have the ruling class that lives off the riches of society and the rest of the people who eat cake. The more things change the more they stay the same.
  13. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    05 May '15 14:301 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    A false dilemma (also called black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, false dichotomy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of the false alternative, or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited al ...[text shortened]... t there is at least one additional option.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
    I know the fallacies. Apparently better than you do.

    Why don't you actually demonstrate I am actually committing any of them as opposed
    to posting random definitions at me.

    I am not presenting a false dilemma. I am stating that I don't see sufficient [if any] downsides
    to the current system to warrant the effort required to change it.

    If you think that that is presenting a false dilemma, you really have no clue what that actually
    means.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    05 May '15 14:42
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I know the fallacies. Apparently better than you do.

    Why don't you actually demonstrate I am actually committing any of them as opposed
    to posting random definitions at me.

    I am not presenting a false dilemma. I am stating that I don't see sufficient [if any] downsides
    to the current system to warrant the effort required to change it.

    If you ...[text shortened]... ink that that is presenting a false dilemma, you really have no clue what that actually
    means.
    The false dilemma involves your invoking of "actual [other] problems." While it is undoubtedly true that the UK has bigger problems than a monarchy, there is no reason why abolishing the monarchy would impede solving these issues. The reorganizational effort would be fairly minor as the monarchy has few duties to begin with.
  15. The Catbird's Seat
    Joined
    21 Oct '06
    Moves
    2598
    05 May '15 15:57
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Because there is something fundamentally wrong with granting someone privileges based on the family they were born into.
    Read Locke for the reasons, which of course he bases on Biblical arguments which you despise.
Back to Top