Planetarion Forums - Returning control of British military to the monarch?

queball · 21 May 2003, 05:35

It seems to me that while Parliament can very well mediate authoritive power internally, it is a less than capable means to decide on long-term foriegn policy. When it comes down to it there is always one decision maker, the Prime Minister or President, currently Tony Blair. But despite his good intentions I believe that an inherited position gives much more incentive for long-term planning. History has shown that loyality to your genes is the greatest force of loyality. Therefore, all we need is a family, ANY family - it just so happens that we already have such a family, with a long successful history.

The main complaint will be that monarchy is "outmoded" or somesuch, I will not try to argue against this line of argument for it is manifestly fallous. My knowledge of history is not as good as I would like but I believe our current system is mainly the result of disputes in the 17th century, in partiular civil wars under the reign of Charles I. Now I can see some people will be worried that another such bad king is inevitable and this would lead to revolution. This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, I could concede SOME consitutional limit such as a 90% in a referendum leading to a change of monarch. Secondly, advances in psychiatric medicine mean that madness is not nearly such a problem today. I am not a doctor but suspect that Charles had curable problems.

You might not realise that plenty of countries operate successfully with a powerful monarch, for example Norway. So my point: monarchy has certain valuable properties and should not be disregarded as "out of date". I realise it would take huge changes to bring back sanity but I believe it is the best choice. Please tell me if there's anything I've missed.

http://www.peterwilkinson.karoo.net/princewilliam.jpg
versus
http://rr0.free.fr/images/blair.jpg

Dante Hicks · 21 May 2003, 07:40

ARTHUR: I am your king!

WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.

ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.

WOMAN: Well, how did you become King, then?

ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,...

[angels sing]
...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!

DENNIS: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/.../scene-03.html

Radical Edward · 21 May 2003, 07:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

quote

http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/.../scene-03.html

fantastic. this is a perfect point.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 21 May 2003, 07:57

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Please tell me if there's anything I've missed.

democratic accountability? [see Dante Hicks' post, he pretty much nailed your argument with one quote from monty python...]

ChubbyChecker · 21 May 2003, 10:22

I would prefer to have to have a referendum before sending our troops out to fight than let the royal family decide. Not that I have anything against our current royal family, just royal families in general.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 15:27

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
It seems to me that while Parliament can very well mediate authoritive power internally, it is a less than capable means to decide on long-term foriegn policy. When it comes down to it there is always one decision maker, the Prime Minister or President, currently Tony Blair. But despite his good intentions I believe that an inherited position gives much more incentive for long-term planning. History has shown that loyality to your genes is the greatest force of loyality. Therefore, all we need is a family, ANY family - it just so happens that we already have such a family, with a long successful history.

The main complaint will be that monarchy is "outmoded" or somesuch, I will not try to argue against this line of argument for it is manifestly fallous. My knowledge of history is not as good as I would like but I believe our current system is mainly the result of disputes in the 17th century, in partiular civil wars under the reign of Charles I. Now I can see some people will be worried that another such bad king is inevitable and this would lead to revolution. This is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, I could concede SOME consitutional limit such as a 90% in a referendum leading to a change of monarch. Secondly, advances in psychiatric medicine mean that madness is not nearly such a problem today. I am not a doctor but suspect that Charles had curable problems.

You might not realise that plenty of countries operate successfully with a powerful monarch, for example Norway. So my point: monarchy has certain valuable properties and should not be disregarded as "out of date". I realise it would take huge changes to bring back sanity but I believe it is the best choice. Please tell me if there's anything I've missed.

http://www.peterwilkinson.karoo.net/princewilliam.jpg
versus
http://rr0.free.fr/images/blair.jpg

What have you been sniffing?

Incidentally, The Armed Forces are under the technical supreme command of the Monarch, and like many other things, their effective direction is carried out by ministers by royal prerogative. Their allegiance is to The Monarch, not to a transitory government.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that The Monarch should be given actual control of military operations, or that they should be given control of foreign policy and use of armed force?

Oh, and last time I looked, Norway was a consitiutional monarchy. Unless they have had a revolution or something. You never can tell with those crazy Norwegians.

Proteus · 21 May 2003, 15:31

If I was in the Military I would be far happier fighting because the Queen said so than because Tony Blair said so.

It's more debatable with Charles and William, but I still think I'd trust a monarch more than some random politician out to make a name for himself.

Nodrog · 21 May 2003, 15:36

Constitutional aristocracy is better than both despotism and democracy, pass it on.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 15:39

But then you make the system by which wars can be brought about by the government even less democratic than it is now.

Also, you wouldn't create a perfectly sealed atmosphere by which The Monarch could just say 'Let's have a war!'; the decision would undoubtedly be taken on the basis of advice from politicians as they would still ultimately control foreign policy. Unless you also turn over foreign policy to the monarch, in which case you have the beginings of a semi-abolutist system, whereby you could subsequently go on to say "I'd be more happy if The Monarch thought X was a good idea than some politicians!" about jsut about anything.

What I would propose would be a more democratic process, whereby all military actions have to be voted on in Parliament, with a free vote - probably a secret ballot, actually. You could also likely improve upon that, if you gave it more thought, which I decline to at the moment.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Constitutional aristocracy is better than both despotism and democracy, pass it on.

Consitutional Nodocracy all the way.

Kyoto · 21 May 2003, 15:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
If I was in the Military I would be far happier fighting because the Queen said so than because Tony Blair said so.

It's more debatable with Charles and William, but I still think I'd trust a monarch more than some random politician out to make a name for himself.

The Grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men.
He marched them up the hill,
And marched them down again.
And when you're up, you're up;
And when you're down, you're down.
And when you're only halfway up,
You're neither up nor down!

And a hey nonny noo

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Kyoto
The Grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men.
He marched them up the hill,
And marched them down again.

That just sums up the capricious nature of aristocracies nicely, I think.

Nodrog · 21 May 2003, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
That just sums up the capricious nature of aristocracies nicely, I think.

Aristocracies dont have to be heredity or the rule of the rich faggot.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Aristocracies dont have to be heredity or the rule of the rich faggot.

Touchy!

I was going by the traditional definition of 'aristocracy', you see. As in the one most lay people, not schooled in the more obscure and pointless nuances of political philosophy (I.E - Not you.) associate it with.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 16:34

btw, Nod, how much have you read of Nozick?

W · 21 May 2003, 16:50

Norway owns.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 16:59

Quote:

Originally posted by W
Norway owns.

It owns Svalbard. Not sure about anything else.

queball · 21 May 2003, 17:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that The Monarch should be given actual control of military operations, or that they should be given control of foreign policy and use of armed force?

Yep.

Quote:

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

But if the farcical aquatic ceremony gave a demonstrably better ruler, does it really matter about philosophical points of power? Incidentally, I don't believe in delegating any old sort of power by majority vote, in general.

"Accountability"... this means the British public are responsible for the actions of the PM, right? I don't see why this is a good thing. What I want is the best possible control, and I would like to know why a prime minister is beter in this regard than a king. I would say that people are somewhat accountable for the actions of their monarch since they always have the option to revolt or use a constitutional route like I suggested.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
"Accountability"... this means the British public are responsible for the actions of the PM, right?

No. The Government is theoretically responsible to Parliament, actually, which in turn is responsible to the public.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
I don't see why this is a good thing. What I want is the best possible control, and I would like to know why a prime minister is beter in this regard than a king.

See above. It would render any change pointless at best, dangerous at worst.

See my more sensible, US-style solution.

ELeeming · 21 May 2003, 17:21

The problem with any sort of referendum is that stupid people get a vote as well.

Therefore I firmly beleive that everyone with an IQ of less than 100 should not get the right to vote.

And the grand old duke of york had a lot more than 10,000 men.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 17:23

Quote:

Originally posted by ELeeming
The problem with any sort of referendum is that stupid people get a vote as well.

Therefore I firmly beleive that everyone with an IQ of less than 100 should not get the right to vote.

Why limit it to a referenda?

And, incidentally why should intelligent people who are utterly politically ignorant be allowed more say than those who are fully versed in the issue, but equally intelligent?

BesigedB · 21 May 2003, 17:23

iq != ability to pass judgement

queball · 21 May 2003, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
But then you make the system by which wars can be brought about by the government even less democratic than it is now.

Argh!!! Less democratic, but why would it be WORSE?

Quote:

Also, you wouldn't create a perfectly sealed atmosphere by which The Monarch could just say 'Let's have a war!'; the decision would undoubtedly be taken on the basis of advice from politicians as they would still ultimately control foreign policy. Unless you also turn over foreign policy to the monarch, in which case you have the beginings of a semi-abolutist system, whereby you could subsequently go on to say "I'd be more happy if The Monarch thought X was a good idea than some politicians!" about jsut about anything.

OK, this is a good point, that contol of the military is tied in with other kinds of administration of the country, it's impossible to divide power. But I doubt dividing the military from politics would be a terrible thing. Is foreign policy much more than diplomacy? I assume we'd work out some system where the monarch is favourable to UN missions but ultimately protects his own, and therefore the country's, interests.

Quote:

What I would propose would be a more democratic process, whereby all military actions have to be voted on in Parliament, with a free vote - probably a secret ballot, actually. You could also likely improve upon that, if you gave it more thought, which I decline to at the moment.

You describe this as US-style, do you really think they're a good model?

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Argh!!! Less democratic, but why would it be WORSE?

Lots of experienced and intelligent opinions of MP's brought to bear via a vote = better than a few close advisers telling The PM or Monarch what's right.

Also, you haven't exactly made the case for why a completely random person's view of a foreign sitution, probably together with their advisors, is better than the politically experienced views of 659 MP's.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
OK, this is a good point, that contol of the military is tied in with other kinds of administration of the country, it's impossible to divide power.

No, it's impossible to divide issues. Like Blair and Brown at the moment; Blair's domestic and foreign issues have to be reconciled with Brown's economic priorities.

So the idea that you could just have a Monarch that would be completely seeled off from the advice, pressure and influence of everybody else who had a hand in policy making is absurd.

In essence, it's pointless to give just the power to declare war to the monarch; you either have to go for an almost fully absolutist system, or reform the system as I propose, or similar.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Is foreign policy much more than diplomacy?

I assume we'd work out some system where the monarch is favourable to UN missions but ultimately protects his own, and therefore the country's, interests.

There is s distinct difference between cosmetic diplomacy, and actual, propper diplomacy; that's why we have this division between the head of state, who handles the cosmetics, and the government, which handles the actual problems.

And yes, foreign policy involves a lot more than just chatting to people. You have to have a sound and coherent overall strategy, and you have to handle negotiations and actions precisely. You can't just give all that power to some hereditary position and expect them to do any better than a professional and democratic government. It just doesn't add up.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
You describe this as US-style, do you really think they're a good model?

In this case, absolutely. We could learn an awful lot from the American system, actually. Some of it is utter guff, but there's a lot that is very well done.

W · 21 May 2003, 17:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
It owns Svalbard. Not sure about anything else.

We own a piece of the south pole too. And we own at having our military forces headed by a king.

Nodrog · 21 May 2003, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
btw, Nod, how much have you read of Nozick?

A fair amount of Anarchy, State and Utopia, and various extracts from some of his epistemological/logic essays. Any reason?

Nodrog · 21 May 2003, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by ELeeming
The problem with any sort of referendum is that stupid people get a vote as well.

Therefore I firmly beleive that everyone with an IQ of less than 100 should not get the right to vote.

And the grand old duke of york had a lot more than 10,000 men.

The fact that a large amount of academics are socialists/marxists partially discredits this theory.

queball · 21 May 2003, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Lots of experienced and intelligent opinions of MP's brought to bear via a vote = better than a few close advisers telling The PM or Monarch what's right.

And how many of those MPs know anything about foriegn policy or war? How many of those MPs know anything about economics or politics? I don't have any problem with a Democratic system people use to protect certain freedoms of their own but I wouldn't want the army under represented/popular control.

If the monarch wants more advice he can ask for it. He'd probably read every letter sent to him. He could delegate power if he really wanted to but I don't think the job is really too complicated. Defend country, defend allies. I'm sure Richard Branson isn't an engineer but Virgin have done pretty well. The only real criteria of ability, as I see it, is motivation.

Quote:

Also, you haven't exactly made the case for why a completely random person's view of a foreign sitution, probably together with their advisors, is better than the politically experienced views of 659 MP's.

If it's a straight secret ballot you get all the problems of any majority-vote system. It's a committee, the main thing that gets done is discussion, voting is a crude check on power at best. Particularly with a strong government in charge.

Quote:

No, it's impossible to divide issues. Like Blair and Brown at the moment; Blair's domestic and foreign issues have to be reconciled with Brown's economic priorities.

So the idea that you could just have a Monarch that would be completely seeled off from the advice, pressure and influence of everybody else who had a hand in policy making is absurd.

In essence, it's pointless to give just the power to declare war to the monarch; you either have to go for an almost fully absolutist system, or reform the system as I propose, or similar.

OK, it wouldn't be radically different, I didn't say it would be. But better than what we have now. It's fine if the monarch is partially influenced by the prime minister but I would like to see a much larger degree of autonomy.

Quote:

There is s distinct difference between cosmetic diplomacy, and actual, propper diplomacy; that's why we have this division between the head of state, who handles the cosmetics, and the government, which handles the actual problems.

And yes, foreign policy involves a lot more than just chatting to people. You have to have a sound and coherent overall strategy, and you have to handle negotiations and actions precisely. You can't just give all that power to some hereditary position and expect them to do any better than a professional and democratic government. It just doesn't add up.

Right: the monarch would decide on foreign policy. I dispute "professional and democratic", I believe we have had very good kings and queens in the past, just as capable or better than the PM. It appears that we vote someone in under internal issues like Educationx3, then suddenly he has to deal with something he has absolutely no experience or training in. Similarly Bush was voted in on isolationist policy but then America got attacked and this guy suddenly had to lead a war. I don't see how this relates to "professional" and it seems a very tenous relationship to "democratic".

Quote:

In this case, absolutely. We could learn an awful lot from the American system, actually. Some of it is utter guff, but there's a lot that is very well done.

But they attacked Iraq and stuff.

Sandsnake · 21 May 2003, 18:16

subjecting military operations to democratic process would be the worst thing ever to happen since "oh lets let this huge horse in the gates." By the time anything got done, it would be too fking late.

The check for this is the ability to replace the decision makers should they make a bad decision or allow parliament to vote to cease military operations they deem unacceptable. This, of course, is already in place, and nothing "crazy" will happen if you vote for someone who isn't prone to throwing military force at everything.

Monarchy as military power...how quickly you forget, huh? Removing the ability to use force was instrumental in removing "divine right" from the government. It is far less preferable (normally) that some idiot who was born into his job should tell troops where to go. He has no accountability because he is king by birth. What ya gonna do? Fire him?

Proteus · 21 May 2003, 18:17

We should copy the Romans.

Have a Senate, vote for Consuls and all that.

MrL_JaKiri · 21 May 2003, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
We should copy the Romans.

Have a Senate, vote for Consuls and all that.

But only have one in command of the armed forces at a time.

Or at least don't have them in charge on alterate days.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 18:27

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
And how many of those MPs know anything about foriegn policy or war? How many of those MPs know anything about economics or politics?

Quite a lot, actually. Most of them are fairly on the ball.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
I don't have any problem with a Democratic system people use to protect certain freedoms of their own but I wouldn't want the army under represented/popular control.

Nobody's talking about that. I was merely stating that Parlaiment should have a free vote on proposals for military action put to it from the Executive.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Defend country, defend allies.

In about 1900, that was pretty much the primary role of the armed forces, save from duffing up a few natives. Not any more.

Unless you're suggesting some return to that.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
If it's a straight secret ballot you get all the problems of any majority-vote system.

Such as?

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
It's a committee, the main thing that gets done is discussion, voting is a crude check on power at best. Particularly with a strong government in charge.

That's a negative argument. You still haven't said how a Monarch would do all this 'better'.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Right: the monarch would decide on foreign policy. I dispute "professional and democratic", I believe we have had very good kings and queens in the past, just as capable or better than the PM.

This is the whole flaw in your argument. You assume that Monarchs are somehow superior to PM's in handling military and foreing policy decisions; god knows why, since you haven't said why.

The point, is though, that hardly any monarchy acted as a complete 'one man band'. Monarchs were constantly in discussion with their chief ministers, or close confidants regarding policy. They were not just constantly acting off their own bat. Napoleon even had frequent discussions with his Marshalls regarding how things should be executed. Even Alexander The Great did this, ffs.

All we have today is a substantially more democratic version of this in the form of cabinet government, or at least in theory. And in many cases, military actions and wars have to go through legislatures as standard..

I don't see how taking that back and making it completely undemocratic and unrepresenatative is a step forward.

And you still haven't said how a system of Monarchy is any better than Democracy, aside from some alarmingly romantic notion that things were done well in the old days, with all the horrible inacuracies that nostalgia brings, and to say hardly much more than that.

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
It appears that we vote someone in under internal issues like Educationx3, then suddenly he has to deal with something he has absolutely no experience or training in. Similarly Bush was voted in on isolationist policy but then America got attacked and this guy suddenly had to lead a war. I don't see how this relates to "professional" and it seems a very tenous relationship to "democratic".

Again, this is another negative argument. (And it's also horribly untrue, since most secretaries of state are directly appointed on the basis of the fact that they have extensive actual or shadow expereience in a relavant department.)

Intrepid00 · 21 May 2003, 18:28

Hehe, I find this all humours.

queball · 21 May 2003, 18:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
This is the whole flaw in your argument. You assume that Monarchs are somehow superior to PM's in handling military and foreing policy decisions; god knows why, since you haven't said why.

I have tried to explain why. They have more incentive. Incentive is very important, more so than ability; I believe that a monarch can learn how to rule well just as much as any other man can.

Quote:

The point, is though, that hardly any monarchy acted as a complete 'one man band'. Monarchs were constantly in discussion with their chief ministers, or close confidants regarding policy. They were not just constantly acting off their own bat. Napoleon even had frequent discussions with his Marshalls regarding how things should be executed. Even Alexander The Great did this, ffs.

Nothing wrong with this, I'm not saying the monarch should make decisions from an ivory tower. I'm interested in power, what people do with that power is not so important.

Quote:

And you still haven't said how a system of monarchy is any better than Democracy, aside from some alarmingly romantic notion that things were done well in the old days, with all the horrible inacuracies that nostalgia brings, and to say hardly much more than that.

Some things were done better in the past and tradition is a great source of inspiration. If I was forced to explain my real reasons for this thread I suppose it's a "Democracy sucks" argument combined with an appreciation that the royal family is really quite attractive. However silly this sounds, I think it's important to evalute how we judge institutions, to criticise familiar notions of power, and to be open-minded, etc.

Why is romanticism "alarming"? Anyway, recommend books and stuff here.

Proteus · 21 May 2003, 18:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
But only have one in command of the armed forces at a time.

Or at least don't have them in charge on alterate days.

In practice they tended to do that.

One would stay in Rome and look after home affairs while the other waged war.

MrL_JaKiri · 21 May 2003, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Proteus
In practice they tended to do that.

One would stay in Rome and look after home affairs while the other waged war.

And when they didn't it went badly wrong, as I recall.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by queball
Some things were done better in the past and tradition is a great source of inspiration. If I was forced to explain my real reasons for this thread I suppose it's a "Democracy sucks" argument combined with an appreciation that the royal family is really quite attractive. However silly this sounds, I think it's important to evalute how we judge institutions, to criticise familiar notions of power, and to be open-minded, etc.

Righto. Plato had/has a better system and argument, though, if you want to go in for this sort of nonsense.

Nodrog · 21 May 2003, 18:49

I think the main point is that people really need to get over this silly idea that "freedom" and "democracy" are somehow intertwined to the extent where it isnt possible to have the former without the latter. Theres no reason that a despotic or aristocratic government couldnt "protect the rights of its citizens" as well as or better than a democratically elected one (especially given that most democracies today fail to do this anyway). Aristocracies have ended up with a bad reputation because of totalitarian faggots like Plato, the Catholic church, and various ogliarchies through history, but theres no reason to assume that it is fundamentally inferior to representitive democracy, as an abstract mode of government

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
but theres no reason to assume that it is fundamentally inferior to representitive democracy, as an abstract mode of government

You hum it and I'll play it.

Proteus · 21 May 2003, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
And when they didn't it went badly wrong, as I recall.

Not that anything bad would happen in the current "we're in a country that borders a country that borders the country we're fighting" command tactic.

Marilyn Manson · 21 May 2003, 18:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Nodrog
Any reason?

Just wanted to know what you thought of him.

Nodrog · 21 May 2003, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Just wanted to know what you thought of him.

He's pretty

, but his writing style is quite dry and boring, making him somewhat difficult to read. Id still recommend him to people though purely for the content of what he writes, rather than the form.