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.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:53 pm
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.
As long as it doesn't really tip any balances or change any real balance of power I find it hard to get bothered TBH (and I wouldn't want all that public exposure for any money).
Whether or not it's a negative to the state or not is a subject of endless debate. There's the obvious - Buckingham Palance is usually surrounded by tourists (not so much right now obviously), but it can also be quite helpful on the international stage - whether senior figures in the rest of the world should take them seriously or not they do.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:53 pm
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.
As long as it doesn't really tip any balances or change any real balance of power I find it hard to get bothered TBH (and I wouldn't want all that public exposure for any money).
Whether or not it's a negative to the state or not is a subject of endless debate. There's the obvious - Buckingham Palance is usually surrounded by tourists (not so much right now obviously), but it can also be quite helpful on the international stage - whether senior figures in the rest of the world should take them seriously or not they do.
I think the argument there would be, why that family then? It's neither empirical nor democratic, and what difference would it make if you were to just make it like a gameshow where a family gets to stay there for like a year? You could do reality TV and everything. I think the royalty owes it to the people.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:53 pm
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.
As long as it doesn't really tip any balances or change any real balance of power I find it hard to get bothered TBH (and I wouldn't want all that public exposure for any money).
Whether or not it's a negative to the state or not is a subject of endless debate. There's the obvious - Buckingham Palance is usually surrounded by tourists (not so much right now obviously), but it can also be quite helpful on the international stage - whether senior figures in the rest of the world should take them seriously or not they do.
I think the argument there would be, why that family then? It's neither empirical nor democratic, and what difference would it make if you were to just make it like a gameshow where a family gets to stay there for like a year? You could do reality TV and everything. I think the royalty owes it to the people.
Because that wouldn't carry the weight of history and tradition and all being part of the pomp and so on. You might think that's nonsense but it's also real.
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:53 pm
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.
As long as it doesn't really tip any balances or change any real balance of power I find it hard to get bothered TBH (and I wouldn't want all that public exposure for any money).
Whether or not it's a negative to the state or not is a subject of endless debate. There's the obvious - Buckingham Palance is usually surrounded by tourists (not so much right now obviously), but it can also be quite helpful on the international stage - whether senior figures in the rest of the world should take them seriously or not they do.
I think the argument there would be, why that family then? It's neither empirical nor democratic, and what difference would it make if you were to just make it like a gameshow where a family gets to stay there for like a year? You could do reality TV and everything. I think the royalty owes it to the people.
Because that wouldn't carry the weight of history and tradition and all being part of the pomp and so on. You might think that's nonsense but it's also real.
Well this is America. And let me tell you about how we do things.
Make the wretched Windsors work for a living. Eight hours a day doing photo ops with tourists, showing up at birthday parties, instead of just getting to hoard all those crown jewels they can't even wear. If they can afford the upkeep on that palace they get to keep it.
Gotta say though, other countries have proven that you can keep the palace without the monarchs.
"Believe me, there’s nothing so terrible that someone won’t support it."
— Un Lun Dun, China Mieville
Well, I would say the royal family is probably hurting people considering that I believe that Prince Andrew, Crown Prince of Wales's younger brother, had sex with women trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
Beelzquill wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:59 pm
Well, I would say the royal family is probably hurting people considering that I believe that Prince Andrew, Crown Prince of Wales's younger brother, had sex with women trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
Beelzquill wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 6:59 pm
Well, I would say the royal family is probably hurting people considering that I believe that Prince Andrew, Crown Prince of Wales's younger brother, had sex with women trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
Much ado about the royal institution itself now is it?
