UN to Britain: Abolish Your Monarchy

I think you've lost the ability to read, on top of everything. The masses choosing their leaders is not direct democracy. There are very few political systems in the world today that do not at least claim to derive legitimacy from the will of their populace. I am at a loss to think of any that openly hold that people are too stupid to make such decisions other than fascism.

And incidentally, arguments against direct democracy are a damn sight more diverse than "preventing the will of the people".

If you wish to counteract my "unsupported ramblings", it follows that you don't agree with me. Ergo that you do think that descendants of the House of Wessex have legitimacy based on that descent. Forgive me for jumping to the absurd conclusion that your stated reasons for thinking this are not in fact your real ones.

You run pretty fast then, huh?

All political systems derive legitimacy from the people beyond petty tyranny. Legitimacy is consent; voting is merely a way to express consent.

Fascism believes that the state is the ultimate manifestation of the will of the populace and that the individual should be suppressed for the common "good".

All political systems, by merely not choosing direct democracy, are rejecting the concept that the people can make these decisions for themselves and are displaying contempt of their constituency. As long as we allow people to decide who are leaders are for us, be they members of Parliament or electors, we cannot claim our will trumps all.

Oh Gods no, I'm just arguing with you for the sake of argument.

Though, as I said, legitimacy is merely the consent of the governed. Those that recognize their leaders give it all the legitimacy it needs.

The trick is stand your ground, dogs chase.

Yeah, go ahead and try that trick.

Dogs chase, but they also catch. Then eat.

Alright, these metaphors are getting silly.

An this on the Queen's birthday...

Autocratic political systems do not derive any legitimacy from their people, due to not having bothered to ask for consent or permission in the first place. They assert legitimacy by some other means. It used to be divine right in the case of the British monarchy. Now it's tourist revenue and other spurious bullshit.

Strange that Mussolini puts it the other way around.
"The first thing is the state - and from the state are derived the rights and fate of the people. Humans come second."

Fascism asserts its legitimacy through the strength and the will of its leaders to rule.

Like I said, that's merely one (right-wing) argument against direct democracy. Others reject it on the basis of inefficiency and impracticality, and accept representative democracy as a substitute. Personally I prefer as close an analogue as possible.

Wasn't it a king we got rid of?

Their current existence and recognized sovereignty by the majority of subjects argue otherwise. As does the restoration and suppression of rebellion since time immemorial.

That is completely consistent with what I said. How are you even arguing this point?

It's an argument for direct democracy. How can you claim that the people are the ultimate authority if their will can be disregarded? Elections for representatives merely attempt to correct aberrations, but they do not prohibit them.

Official birthday. Selfish bitch gets two.

Liz is a fairly typical upper-middle class, emotionally repressed, tightwad. We could do a lot worse, true, but fact is, we could do a lot better, given the right to make a choice.

And next in line is jug-ears, and anyone who thinks that fifth-rate brain with delusions of adequacy will be anything other than a total fucking disaster is living in cloud-cuckoo land. Frankly, I can't wait for him to be king, I think he's the best chance we have of getting rid of the whole damn lot of them since Charlie I. He's got the same belief in divine right, for a start...

There's never a wrong time to abolish the UN.

The rumour I hear is that Charles is going to be passed over completely in favor of his eldest son. Harry? Is that the older one?

The monarchy isn't going anywhere. Brits seem to think it's the only reason to visit the country and who am I to argue with them?

Just try that and watch where that blade will end up.

Has any other britforgers suddenly noticed the change from reporting on "WAGS" to reporting on the younger royals and anyone that may sneeze in their vicinity?

I assumed it was simply boredom, given that at least, the royals are bred to entertain the masses, whereas the WAGS etc tend to be chavs that struck money, but the bored conspiracy side of me asks if maybe there's a correlation to get those of us that don't read Hello or OK caring about the royals long enough to stave off the guillotines?

I think post #2 has set a record for the most reps I've ever gotten for a single post!

Ah...

Trust to Henry to reference the failed 18th century French experiment at socialism and the bloody, paranoid, counterproductive horror it was.

Sorry to say it but it also might be your dumbest. There is no pride in attracting the whole . The mass pos repping by 'those' people should make you think. IMHO of course.

The ability to repress the rebellion of a people does not indicate consent from that people. And there has been no referendum or election to demonstrate the wishes of a "majority of subjects". If there had been, I would not hold this view.

You claim that a fascist state springs from the will populace. Mussolini said that the rights of the populace do not exist without the fascist state. That's the opposite, and therefore not at all consistent with what you said.
It's an important point because I believe that the view that the population are not to be trusted with choosing their leaders is more or less uniquely fascist these days.

I don't claim that the people are the ultimate authority. There are many tendancies acting upon states and governments. I'm merely asserting that arguments against direct democracy are not limited to the "people are stupid, don't trust them" variety.