This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Thebestoftherest wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:34 am
Wait J thought the queen was a mere figure head, having only slightly more power than a random sword on a US marine.
The queen has all kinds of power that she doesn't use on principle. This is in part because if the monarch tried to use the power, they'd very quickly lose all of their power. Look at how Juan Carlos I foiled a coup in Spain for an example of an effective constitutional monarch.
The power exists in theory but there's an unspoken acceptance that it only still does because it'll only be used in well-defined effectively ceremonial circumstances (such as dissolving Parliament). In practical terms the queen's a symbol rather than a leader.
From a practical perspective I do wonder if there's something to be said for having the people with the practical power not be in charge in theory. I also wonder if it aids political stability more generally.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:01 am
There are also still subtle ways she can use the power, like concealing her level of tax-funded wealth from the public.
Go on then, what's the level of concealed tax-funded wealth? Or are you going to say we can't know because it's concealed, but must still be there because, erm?
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:54 pm
And to think that this whole thing could have been avoided if California just joined the commonwealth.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:01 am
There are also still subtle ways she can use the power, like concealing her level of tax-funded wealth from the public.
Go on then, what's the level of concealed tax-funded wealth? Or are you going to say we can't know because it's concealed, but must still be there because, erm?
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:01 am
There are also still subtle ways she can use the power, like concealing her level of tax-funded wealth from the public.
Go on then, what's the level of concealed tax-funded wealth? Or are you going to say we can't know because it's concealed, but must still be there because, erm?
As for the rest, I've got a rule of not bothering with arguments that simply refer to a link. The link needs to be there as a reference to back up what's said in the argument but the argument needs to stand on its own two feet and make its point in its post.
***
Quite honestly I find most whinging about the royal family comes from people who sound like they've got a chip on their shoulder, back from when the monarchy held real power. Since it doesn't any more then it's really a matter of "so what?" as far as I'm concerned. Being expected to grovel is history.
Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: ↑Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:01 am
There are also still subtle ways she can use the power, like concealing her level of tax-funded wealth from the public.
Go on then, what's the level of concealed tax-funded wealth? Or are you going to say we can't know because it's concealed, but must still be there because, erm?
As for the rest, I've got a rule of not bothering with arguments that simply refer to a link. The link needs to be there as a reference to back up what's said in the argument but the argument needs to stand on its own two feet and make its point in its post.
***
Quite honestly I find most whinging about the royal family comes from people who sound like they've got a chip on their shoulder, back from when the monarchy held real power. Since it doesn't any more then it's really a matter of "so what?" as far as I'm concerned. Being expected to grovel is history.
I think it's just a basic matter of inequality standards, and not freedom from tyrannical regime doctrines.
Socialistically, any kind of revenue that flows in their direction is just a leech on not just the state, but the nation. Possibly humanity.
Really though I'm not really sure of if it's even much of a burden on society in the grand scheme of things. I don't think you can necessarily get away with calling their "subsidy" non-exclusive or non-rival public good or anything, but it's certainly not very intrusive to the market.
