Loading...
Welcome to Anarcho-Punk.net community ! Please register or login to participate in the forums.   Ⓐ//Ⓔ

Constitutional Monarchy

Discussion in 'General political debates' started by nodz, Apr 23, 2010.

  1. nodz

    nodzExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    328

    0

    5

    Apr 4, 2010
     
    Was just reading the Anarchist FAQ and it gives the definition of Anarchy as
    I understand that from this definition the old types of monarchy (one single powerful order) is in direct contravention to this. However, I want to understand what people's opinions are relating to a constitutional monarchy (essentially the power of the single powerful order has been usurped by the governmental parties...as what happened with James II/George III in England). The capitalist power of the government is therefore also against the true definition of anarchy but where does this put the monarch in that it is a 'rubber stamp'.

    Is the monarch still considered hierarhical in that laws of treason etc still exist and therefore goes against the above definiion in that it is still a symbol of authority, although ultimately has no real authoirty?
    Is the monarch still considered hierarhical due to class structure, upper ruling class etc?
    Is the monarch still considered hierarhical due to the capitalist wealth that they amass?

    I've posted this for the point of my own learning, understanding and discussion rather than trying to inflame.
     

  2. gilk

    gilkActive Member Forum Member


    39

    0

    0

    Apr 23, 2010
     
    okay anything with monarchy is so ancient and old that i don't even like to think about it. a constitutional monarchy is basically a dictatorship, only the guy can't do whatever he wants, he has some rules. still dumb. no matter what no one man should decide what happens to millions. no man deserves that.
     
  3. stinagen

    stinagenExperienced Member Experienced member


    64

    0

    0

    Dec 6, 2009
     
    well a constitutional monarchy can mean many things often the queen king ect have little to now power. They are often just a tradition 3 out of the 4 most democratic nations according to the economist are constitutional monarchys. The king can have a large amount of power or none at all it all depends on how its used. it's far to general of a term in my book but i oppose it none the less.
     
  4. gilk

    gilkActive Member Forum Member


    39

    0

    0

    Apr 23, 2010
     
    they shouldn't have one bit of power because they weren't even elected, just put their because of some stupid "divine right" idea.
     
  5. stinagen

    stinagenExperienced Member Experienced member


    64

    0

    0

    Dec 6, 2009
     
    no one should have any power over a individual
    "their is no authority but yourself"-crass
     
  6. gilk

    gilkActive Member Forum Member


    39

    0

    0

    Apr 23, 2010
     
    oh yeah i agree, but atleast in this fucked democracy we have its better then just having a random asshole from a monarch family rule over us.
     
  7. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    I live in a country with a royal family that has no actual power but are more like symbols of the nation. The fact that they have no say in anything doesn't make monarchy ok. The royal family costs billions every year and from where are those money taken? The taxes. Instead of doing something sane with that money like using it for healthcare or something, it's spent on exclusive cars for the king and the prince and designer dresses for the queen and the princesses. This summer the crown princess is getting married and a lot of extra money is taken to that as well.
    I see no reason why i should have to be part of paying for having a stupid royal family as a symbol of a nation when i don't even want there to actually be any nations, so i'd say i'm not pro-monarchy in any form. :p
     
  8. nodz

    nodzExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    328

    0

    5

    Apr 4, 2010
     
    Like Anon I live in a country where the Royal family has no power and has had none for the past 400 years. The Royal family is provided a 'retainer' if you like from the taxes, but much of the wealth is personal. However, much of that personal wealth probably came from divine right.
     
  9. xOutspokenx

    xOutspokenxActive Member Forum Member


    36

    0

    0

    Mar 7, 2010
     
    Yes.

    Not as much because of the monarch itself, but because of the system of constitutional monarchy is not dissimilar from the system of liberal democracy.

    The sovereign is in many aspects, not dissimilar from the figure of the president (obviously not the case for presidential democracies) and is still part of a larger hierarchical structure of power. Even if you take away the figure of the sovereign, the system below him is the exact same as liberal democracies where there is a precise hierarchy where the Prime Minister/President is at the top of the pyramid of government.

    Absolutely!

    Even in constitutional monarchies, the issue of class structure is important. Not only because in any political system that works along the lines of capitaist economical theory there will always be a problem of 'class' (or rather division of labour) but also because power is in many aspects the result of 'class'. As for example here in the UK, where the Upper House of Parliament (the House of Lords) is largely formed by un-elected 'representative' (which are really not repesentatives of anyone given they don't really get their mandate from anyone) which have the right to sit in the House of Lords simply in virtue of their family's status and title rather than any real 'merit'.

    This is a bit more complicated.

    On the one hand, regular income for members of the royal families of Europe (don't really know outside Europe) is insured by State subsidies which opens up the problem of State funding being used for the substenance of individuals who don't necessarily have a need for a regular income.
    On the other hand, the wealth that most royal families rely upon today is the product of the centuries of brutality, oppression and social/economic inequality exercised by monarchs before the advent of constitutional monarchy. So in that respect the royal families are considered to be elements of the hierarchical system of power because of their wealth being built upon the exploitation of the lower levels of the hierarchical pyramid.

    Obviously the whole issue is even more complicated with constitutional monarchies than it is with liberal democracies for a series of issues related with the history of monarchical systems of power. So it's obviously not as simple or clear-cut as you say.
     
  10. nodz

    nodzExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    328

    0

    5

    Apr 4, 2010
     
    Sorry didn't mean to make it sound black and white, I was asking questions to improve my understanding. I went looking on some web pages and found a diagram of the political specturm. It shows monarchies (true monarchies that is, not constitutional ones) extreme right wing (monarchy = single power).
    I then came across a 3D diagram http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... _chart.jpg
    that pretty much explained where each of the politcal stances appear on the spectrum.
     
  11. Ivanovich

    IvanovichExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    2

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
  12. nodz

    nodzExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    328

    0

    5

    Apr 4, 2010
     
    Wow. I didn't realise that the Monarchy of Britain had such remaining power.
     
  13. Ivanovich

    IvanovichExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    676

    2

    6

    Jan 31, 2010
     
    Yeah, they says it's ok cos she never use her powers, soooo.... what the fuck she got them for, then?

    Hey Mr Copper, it ok I carry round this AK47, I aint ever gonna use it, init. I learnt something thought. See, when I at school about million years ago, teacher said UK still had death penaly for treason, piracy, and burning the Queen's docks. Well, I look that up just now and found out that since 1998, that not true. No death penalty at all now (at least, not officially).
     
  14. Anom

    AnomExperienced Member Experienced member Forum Member


    698

    0

    0

    Dec 21, 2009
     
    haha i had to look up the word 'docks', and just as i suspected it wasn't to burn the queens doc martens you got killed for, even tho that would've been so much more fun!
     
Loading...