SpaceCowboy comments on Disgraced Andrew insists royal staff call him 'sir' and fetch beer

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

You're overestimating the value of laws. Laws don't create civilization, the civilization creates laws. The jungle is always there, we just generally avoid it because going to the jungle means our survival is down to just our abilities and judgement. It's far preferable to stay in civilization where we have our best chance of survival.

Your hypothetical examples all depend on people being weak willed in the face of a constitutional crisis. If people are weak, there being a King or not a King makes no difference. The US has no King, but people are weak towards Trump, and it's the same result as your hypotheticals, just different titles.

And why would the King risk his cushy life to do any of these things? Why would someone who is in a position like that for the rest of his life risk it all for some short term gain?

So corruption can happen in a republican, and it seems to me it's more obvious when someone doesn't give royal ascent, and it's very unlikely a King who has guaranteed housing in a palace for life being waited on hand and foot would risk that for a small bump in his stock portfolio. It seems you're imagining the King behaving like a corrupt politician, but you're not explaining how replacing the King with an actual politician makes that less likely to happen? If anything a term limited politician is more likely to do any of these hypotheticals, get that money in the limited time they're in the position to get it. And the people that voted for that politician are more likely to look the other way than if a King started doing shenanigans.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] brynden_rivers_esq@lemmy.ca 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

As I said, I think the "jungle vs civilization" analogy is a little weird. I don't think laws create civilization. But I do think laws matter for fascists. If they didn't they wouldn't need to pack the supreme court. Project 2025 wouldn't be so focused on laws and the judiciary. They're not meaningless...at the edge of the jungle? I guess? in this analogy?

So, when you talk about people being weak willed, you're saying that a fascist coming to power is a kind of personal moral failing of the individuals in a society. I think that's pretty absurd, and takes all responsibility away from the systems that shape people's "willpower," as well as their understanding of what is and is not overreach. If that's true then there's just nothing to be done? Just let the fascists have all the places with people who have weak wills? lol

Okay, so I don't know why you will not engage with a hypothetical as a means of seeing the problem I'm talking about. Obviously the king isn't going to upset the balance of power in the Commonwealth for his vacation home in quebec...if you can't generalize that to something more important (such as, in Australia, the cold war), then there's no point in talking about hypothetical situations...the point is to generalize from them. But that's fine, it doesn't really matter.

And for what it's worth, his cushy life isn't going anywhere whether the commonwealth crumbles or not. The king of england could cease to be the king of canada and it wouldn't cost him anything (except, I guess, a vacation home in quebec he never uses). I'd be thrilled if the UK decides to guillotine them, but they won't and I guess I have to make peace with that.

I'm not proposing replacing the king, I'm proposing kicking the king out. Just don't have a king. If we must have a king, I would prefer to have a Canadian monarch and to stop legitimizing the genocidiers, looters, and pedophiles in the house of windsor...but I don't see that we need a king. We could still just have a governor general appointed by the PM...make the system actually and definitely work the way you say it works (and I agree it works 99% of the time...but why the fuck are we leaving 1% on the table just to glorify those assholes? Like...we know it doesn't work that way 100% of the time given the handful of examples I've shared).

Honestly though, why? Like...I haven't seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

Like…I haven’t seen you say anything in favor of having a king, or of having this king in particular?

I have but you haven't been paying attention. If you don't have a King, people will create one. The US technically doesn't have a King, but they've created on in Donald Trump in all but name. You don't seem to think about any potential of a politician doing the things that you mention in all of these hypotheticals, but you worry greatly about an actual King doing them. And that's the problem, a politician can become a tyrant without anyone noticing. If the King became a tyrant everyone would notice.

You label the King as a "genocidiers, looters, and pedophiles" even though he has not personally done those things. His brother has done some crimes, and he's being prosecuted. When will Donald Trump or any of the billionaires in the US get prosecuted? Probably never.

And are you accusing the King of everything his ancestors have done? Sounds to me like you really believe in lineage stuff way more than I do. Seems unfair to judge someone for what their ancestors did. If there was no King would you be devoting time to researching what Mark Carney's ancestors did and unfairly judging him for those things?

The monarchy acts as an emotional lightning rod for many people. All the emotional garbage whether it be grievance over things from the history books, nostalgia, or just a love of pomp and pageantry gets focused on the monarchy who are apolitical. That separates the emotional garbage from politics. Allows people to think about the actual policies the politician is proposing rather than some historical grievance or how "Presidential" they look. Americans keep voting in old coots out of nostalgia for some good times when Ronald Reagan was President. We still get a touch of that with Justin Trudeau benefiting from nostalgia over his father, but you'll have a tough time arguing people had loyalty to him like he was a King.

Americans feel like they're supposed to be loyal to the President and because of that they won't remove a President from office even when he commits egregious crimes. The Prime Minister gets some degree of respect for the job, but a vote of no confidence is something much more likely to happen as it won't seem disloyal to the country. For those that feel they must show subservience to a person to prove their loyalty to the country we have a King who's apolitical. In the US, the subservient must show loyalty to the President since they have no king.

There are many many reasons to have a King, not least of which was the reason Pierre Trudeau brought up: It would take a lot of effort to remove the King and it wouldn't really change anything. Why bother removing the King?

The only reasons you have to go through that effort is hypotheticals (which would also apply to a President) and your belief that there's something wrong with the Royal lineage. Which is... hmmmm.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] brynden_rivers_esq@lemmy.ca 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You're arguing the king is a non-entity, but a king is inevitable? Most people in most places throughout history have lived without one. If you want to look at "civilizations," the Roman Republic and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy come to mind immediately.

And come on, are you serious? The King endorses genocide and imperialist looting by wearing "his" regalia. All the royal symbols are stolen from the people slaughtered by the monarchy. He could return all the symbols and keep all the wealth...would cost him nothing...good PR even! (I'd still say all of the wealth is stolen and should be given away to help people in the places his ancestors colonized...but luckily he's saved me the trouble by showing he doesn't care enough to even give up the symbols)

Mark Carney isn't the right comparison. The office of Prime Minister is the right comparison to the monarchy, and it's (at least theoretically) representative.

It's not the family I care about, it's the institution. This is like arguing that the KKK hasn't lynched anyone lately...so can we really hold the institution responsible for the crimes of the people in its past? Like...it's an institution. OF COURSE we can hold it responsible for the things it does. Every Windsor has the right and ability (and obligation) to abdicate. Children of KKK members also have the right and ability and obligation to leave the organization. I don't think that's really an appropriate comparison, the scale of the monarchy's atrocities is beyond compare. I assume we don't need to get into ennumerating the crimes of the monarchy, but if you don't know that we're talking about a 9-figure scale, we can talk about that more.

If the king abdicated I would applaud him. If he gave away every penny of the royal family's wealth and then abdicated I'd bow before him, kiss his feet, beg the honor to host him in my home, if he was deprived I'd do my best to feed and house and clothe him myself. I'd be so proud of him, proud that a fellow human being should have that moral fortitude and courage. It's not him or his bloodline that counts (except to the institution), it's the institution that's the problem. FWIW I'd gladly have Harry over for dinner, even though he's done some half-assed-in-between thing. Good enough for me, given that he's not the monarch. I don't hate him because of his Windsor blood. Anyway the king would never do that, so whatever.

I'm not totally clear...you're acting as if the king does have power, and provides some kind of a-political stability...but earlier you were saying he has no power? If you want him to have no power...why leave him with power? Just take it away. Make the Prime Minister a truly elected position, and have the prime minister actually appoint the Governor General...it'll work the same as always, but we escape relying on norms, leaving a constitutional crisis sitting there like a chekov's gun. I still really don't understand how you don't see that latent crisis as a problem. You seem to be saying it couldn't possibly happen (it happened in australia, and again I don't think we'd ever know the crown was involved if not for the palace letters) and if it's not impossible it's easy to handle (it wasn't easy in australia - they literally just let the monarch dissolve their democratically elected parliament and appoint someone she liked as prime minister. There were massive protests but in the end everyone moved on...you'd say they were weak-willed I guess? Are we weak willed for not immediately pulling the plug upon seeing that?). PLUS we get to separate ourselves from one of the most horrifically murderous institutions in human history? PLUS 64% of Canadians want to abolish the monarchy so it's inherently desirable? What's not to love?

It would not take any work to remove the King...at least a lot less work than declaring a GST holiday or whatever. That takes real work. I can write the law right now: "the Queen of Canada is deemed to be a natural person that is not any existing natural person, and is deemed to exercise authority granted to her under statutes of Canada in accordance with a written request of the Prime Minister, published in the Canada Gazette" Boom, done! This would let all other laws in Canada work precisely as they already do, without amendment. The only thing that would change is who the prime minister addresses his "suggestions" to. I wouldn't mind doing the same thing to the governor general, but that might be a bit more complicated in the handoff between prime ministers, so maybe we just leave it as-is. There is an existing proposal before the HOC that's a bit more complicated, but whatever.

And look, I'm obviously not saying America is any better, the U.S. is a fascist hellscape despite not having a king, and despite having a relatively robust constitution (things are better here but I don't think it's because we don't have a robust constitution). I'm not sure if you think I'm saying America is any better...

All I'm saying is, Canada would be better than it is.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent