Pope sends direct message to Ben

[rah]

I do love how he is totally oblivious to that fact.

[giblets]

I can't be bothered to read all that text.

[N35t0r]

I like it how ben defends one branch of the monarchy as 'legitimate' and somehow having a greater 'right' to rule when the only reason they and any other monarchs got to the throne is through military power.

[Alexander's Horse]

I can't be bothered to read all that text.

same here

[Ben Kenobi]

I like it how ben defends one branch of the monarchy as 'legitimate' and somehow having a greater 'right' to rule when the only reason they and any other monarchs got to the throne is through military power.

As opposed to the next Argentine Junta?

[Elok]

I like it how ben defends one branch of the monarchy as 'legitimate' and somehow having a greater 'right' to rule when the only reason they and any other monarchs got to the throne is through military power.

Not true. Some of them had sex with the right people, or were the children of people who did. Others had the previous monarch assassinated; were put in place as useful idiots by people with military, clerical, political, financial or social power; filled a vacancy by popular acclaim after the last occupant got executed...oh, there are a lot of other ways, I'm sure, but those are the big ones that come to mind.

[Ben Kenobi]

I do love how he is totally oblivious to that fact.

I can't be bothered to read all that text.

Perhaps rah should read before commenting? I hear it's a skill most college programs teach.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not true. Some of them had sex with the right people, or were the children of people who did. Others had the previous monarch assassinated; were put in place as useful idiots by people with military, clerical, political, financial or social power; filled a vacancy by popular acclaim after the last occupant got executed...oh, there are a lot of other ways, I'm sure, but those are the big ones that come to mind.

Elok, not all nations have the storied history of England where they can actually keep track of which military dictatorship is in power, let alone 1000 years of a monarchy.

[Elok]

Okay, so what's your point? That England is vastly superior for having a well-documented list of mostly-mediocre dictators, who on occasion transferred power peacefully?

[N35t0r]

As opposed to the next Argentine Junta?

Those bloody dictators who took power by force (and with US support) and murdered countless civilians? Pretty much worse, IMHO, but I've always been against them and at least 95% of the country agrees with it.

So either you think I support them (to which I say **** you, they tortured my grandfather) or you think they were a fine example (to which I also say **** you), or I don't really see your point.

Not true. Some of them had sex with the right people, or were the children of people who did. Others had the previous monarch assassinated; were put in place as useful idiots by people with military, clerical, political, financial or social power; filled a vacancy by popular acclaim after the last occupant got executed...oh, there are a lot of other ways, I'm sure, but those are the big ones that come to mind.

So, in the end, either military power, inheriting something gained through military power, or propped up by people with military power?

[Elok]

Yeah, but to be fair, pretty much all states are ultimately sustained by the implicit threat of military force. Democracy is superior because it gives us a choice as to who holds the guns. Most of the time.

[N35t0r]

Well, over here we did have a somewhat prolonged anarchy/civil war period while we decided on the exact details of our democracy, but this was after we decided (by vote) that we were going to set up a democratic government. Even after the 2001 crisis in which the political parties lost a lot of credibility, the guys who advocated dissolving the system and setting up a new one barely got any votes. The various military governments had an even greater threat of military force to rely upon (after all, they had already used them to take power) yet they were toppled in the end (relatively peacefully even).
I think it's a significant difference between that and a system whose head of state, either directly or indirectly, gets it legitimacy from military power.

[Ben Kenobi]

Those bloody dictators who took power by force (and with US support)

Which means exactly what to jolly old england?

and murdered countless civilians? Pretty much worse, IMHO, but I've always been against them and at least 95% of the country agrees with it.

True the monarchy has had problems, but surely you can see that it's far, far superior to what Argentina has experienced.

So either you think I support them (to which I say **** you, they tortured my grandfather) or you think they were a fine example (to which I also say **** you), or I don't really see your point.

The point being that criticizing England when Argentina's system is so terrible makes no sense to me. England is a beacon of Democracy in comparison. Even under the Tudors.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think it's a significant difference between that and a system whose head of state, either directly or indirectly, gets it legitimacy from military power.

Which has lasted, what? All of a decade?

[Elok]

Well, over here we did have a somewhat prolonged anarchy/civil war period while we decided on the exact details of our democracy, but this was after we decided (by vote) that we were going to set up a democratic government. Even after the 2001 crisis in which the political parties lost a lot of credibility, the guys who advocated dissolving the system and setting up a new one barely got any votes. The various military governments had an even greater threat of military force to rely upon (after all, they had already used them to take power) yet they were toppled in the end (relatively peacefully even).
I think it's a significant difference between that and a system whose head of state, either directly or indirectly, gets it legitimacy from military power.

Yes, but you treasure democracy as something newly won. Give it a couple of generations. I pay my taxes not out of belief in the social contract, but in the knowledge that not doing so will lead to fines, arrest, imprisonment, or worse. Same as almost every other law-abiding citizen on earth. Throughout history, there have been monarchs who ruled humanely and with broad popular support. There have also been ruthless, thuggish democracies--think Athens around the time of the Peloponnesian war. In the end, all rule and law is backed by the threat of force. Which is not to deny that democracy is generally vastly superior...