How do I refute stupid pro-monarchist arguements? [Archive]

19th January 2010, 08:12

I live in Australia, a member of the British Commonwealth. Prince Something-or-other just made a visit and now the media is orgasming about how damn awesome it is. Back to the point, I got into an arguement with my parents about the monarchy's place in (specifically Australian) society. The last point that was brought up was that being a member of the Commonwealth provides economic "stability" and friendly relations with Britain and other members of the Commonwealth and a higher standard of living. How do I refute this stupid pro-monarchist arguement?

Chambered Word

19th January 2010, 17:03

jake williams

19th January 2010, 17:10

Guillotine.

Robocommie

19th January 2010, 17:14

Ask them if the United States has a hostile relationship with Great Britain, even though we rather publicly broke away from the British monarchy.

19th January 2010, 21:07

Guillotine.
Yeah right, cos I always leave a spare beheading machine lying around.

Lyev

19th January 2010, 21:29

Tell them the monarchy are good-for-nothing unelected sponges. Also, the history of British colonialism is written in blood. I found this on the internet somewhere:
Aboriginal peoples lived in Australia for thousands of years before Europeans arrived. They suffered greatly as a result of the arrival of the British in Australia. When Captain Cook visited in the late 1700s it is estimated that there were about 750,000 Aborigines. By the 1920s this number had fallen by around 90%.
This kind of conquest by "adventurers exploring virgin soil in the name of queen and country" or whatever paved the way for early capitalism. Marx describes it very nicely in the Manifesto:
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

19th January 2010, 21:38

Also, the history of British colonialism is written in blood.
The history of all colonialism is written in blood, but my parents think that we "owe" it to Britain for creating this nation

Left-Reasoning

19th January 2010, 22:02

Are your parents in favor of the monarchy because of some sense of duty or do they think that they would benefit from it?

El Rojo

19th January 2010, 22:08

"never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to your level and beat you on experience"

hows the auzzie economy been doing recently? im pretty sure the commonwealth has minimal impact on the world economy

19th January 2010, 22:15

19th January 2010, 22:38

Are your parents in favor of the monarchy because of some sense of duty or do they think that they would benefit from it?
It's a bit of both. They both come from supposedly socialist states (my mother from the USSR and dad from SFR Yugoslavia) and the life they've got here is much better than what they had there. The British monarchy is the only thing holding together the Commonwealth. They feel it's somehow necessary to become ingrained and assimillated into Australian culture and somehow that culture means the devil-worship and ass-kissing of mother Britain. It's in my opinion that they think the old British Empire still has a physical existence (I don't mean economically, don't you know we live in the American Empire? :rolleyes:) and we're supposed to be glad for it.

Bilan

19th January 2010, 23:07

Pick your battles: this isn't worth it.
The monarchy is totally reactionary, yes. They are indeed unelected sponges, yes. But in Australia, that isn't really of any concern. It hardly effects us in any meaningful way.
Bigger fish to fry.

Chambered Word

19th January 2010, 23:26

It's a bit of both. They both come from supposedly socialist states (my mother from the USSR and dad from SFR Yugoslavia) and the life they've got here is much better than what they had there. The British monarchy is the only thing holding together the Commonwealth. They feel it's somehow necessary to become ingrained and assimillated into Australian culture and somehow that culture means the devil-worship and ass-kissing of mother Britain. It's in my opinion that they think the old British Empire still has a physical existence (I don't mean economically, don't you know we live in the American Empire? :rolleyes:) and we're supposed to be glad for it.

Impossible, Australia has no culture. :lol:

Basically the monarchy are not accountable to the people and are free to mooch off our tax dollars and spend it on frivolous bullshit that doesn't work like homeopathy. But to be honest, like Bilan said, in the real world it has very little effect on us and we can do well enough without them. Don't forget it was the monarch's representative who kicked out Gogh Whitlam (who is one of few Australian politicians I have respect for).

Perhaps tell your parents no Australians worth talking to really give a shit about how much of our 'culture' immigrants 'embrace'. It's such a big load of wank.

OCMO

19th January 2010, 23:39

Mozambique is in Commonwealth and they never been under British crown. One thing doesn't implie the other.

lines

19th January 2010, 23:51

Ask them if the United States has a hostile relationship with Great Britain, even though we rather publicly broke away from the British monarchy.

Using the United States as an example of a country that broke away from the monarchy doesn't help the anti-monarchist position due to the capitalist exploitation the USA enacts on its own citizens and abroad.. plus all the wars and stuff.

Tatarin

20th January 2010, 01:40

I guess one of the best refutation of monarchism is the complete waste of tax money for an already well-off family, adding that these kings and queens do not have any power over anything. At least ministers and politicians do something - enemy or not - but what do these dinosaurs do? Eat grass?

The last point that was brought up was that being a member of the Commonwealth provides economic "stability" and friendly relations with Britain and other members of the Commonwealth and a higher standard of living.

Strange argument. Switzerland is not part of any union or commonwealth, yet they seem to do pretty good. The United States, as mentioned above, broke with the UK, and now they are the most powerful nation in recorded history. Maybe Australia could be at the same position in some 200 years if it cuts it's ties with the Commonwealth? And who were the so called "second world hegemon" after WW2? This commonwealth? No, it was Russia and it's allies. China managed to become very successful in just some mere 60 years.

Secondly, the "crown" did nothing for any standards of living at all. It was struggle and more struggle from those who had it worst. If nothing drastical happens the next 50 years every standard of living ever fought for will be a thing of privately printed "history" books.

And for the argument of standars of living - what about Denmark? Norway? Or Sweden? Sweden never had much of an empire, yet it is one of the strongest welfare states today.

A.R.Amistad

20th January 2010, 01:59

Make them watch Monty Python's Holy Grail.

20th January 2010, 08:23

Using the United States as an example of a country that broke away from the monarchy doesn't help the anti-monarchist position due to the capitalist exploitation the USA enacts on its own citizens and abroad.. plus all the wars and stuff.
Agreed. All states today are capitalist, with the exception of Cuba and maybe later Venezuela. If we are to stick to our ideals in an arguement we shouldn't bring up any capitalist state, let alone the USA.

Chambered Word

20th January 2010, 20:42

Make them watch Monty Python's Holy Grail.

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

And for the argument of standars of living - what about Denmark? Norway? Or Sweden? Sweden never had much of an empire, yet it is one of the strongest welfare states today.

I was just going to point out that, IIRC, Denmark has a monarchy.

whore

21st January 2010, 01:09

Mozambique is in Commonwealth and they never been under British crown. One thing doesn't implie the other.
this.
not only are there various republics (pakistan, fiji, etc.) in the commonwealth, mozambique was never even part of the british empire!

so, the argument that australia (or any country) needs to keep the monarchy to stay in the commonwealth is obviously wrong.

the next thing to do would be to ask what special powers the queen (or the prince) has. after all, they mus be something pretty special to have so much potential power. (it's not real power, if they tried to do anything with it, the parliament (whichever one it affected) would say, sorry monarchy, fuck off. especially in the uk where the "constitution" is laws passed by the parliament.) so, what special abilities do they have and why don't they ever use them?

21st January 2010, 05:02

so, the argument that australia (or any country) needs to keep the monarchy to stay in the commonwealth is obviously wrong.

And even so, by the looks of it, Australia is economically independent from Britain. It can handle it's own internal problems. We don't need the Commonwealth imo.

21st January 2010, 09:04

I remember now, one of my mother's rebuttals was "if it's not broke, don't fix it".

whore

21st January 2010, 09:32

but it is broke.
monarchism is a fundementally broken political system. it says that simply by virtue of birth, a person can rule. fuck that shit.

-----

mods, the second time this has happened. the board doesn't want me to post something because it is too short, i hit the back button, post something longer, and then the short (original) version is posted! what the fuck?

-----

but it is broke.
monarchism is a fundementally broken political system. it says that simply by virtue of birth, a person can rule. fuck that shit. also, just because something isn't obviously broken, doesn't mean it isn't very inefficient, or has other non-obvious problems. reverence for individuals (like the shit that the monarchs occaciousnly get) is a problem.

please lengthen your fucking post by one character. fuck off. (directed at the board software)

Demogorgon

21st January 2010, 10:48

There are some really strange arguments there. Australia constitutionally speaking is scarcely a monarchy anyway as the Queen has no function besides the appointment of the Governor General and State Governors (at the direction of the Prime Minister and State Premiers) and in practice doesn't even have the reserve power or behind the scenes influence she has in britain so she can't claim to have any impact on Australia.

As for friendly relations with the Commonwealth, well for one, most commonwealth countries are Republics and perhaps more importantly Australia's main trading partners are China, Japan and the US. Not Britain.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/focus/081201_top10_twoway_exports.html

Patchd

21st January 2010, 10:55

The history of all colonialism is written in blood, but my parents think that we "owe" it to Britain for creating this nation
Then question their love for their nation. Why do they put faith in a nation that constantly works against the working class, that exploits us at work, oppresses us socially, economically and politically?

Why don't they think that people can have relations with one another without the need for nation borders to exist (a bizarre concept which only divides people in the first place). If anything, even if they continue to think that you 'owe Britain' for the creation of Australia, what has the Queen or the current Royal family got to do with it, the British landed in Australia in the 18th century, now I know that parasite is old, but she's not that old.

Yazman

21st January 2010, 10:57

Guillotine.

Please do not make one-word posts as they are against the rules of this forum.

This is a verbal warning.

21st January 2010, 11:09

Then question their love for their nation. Why do they put faith in a nation that constantly works against the working class, that exploits us at work, oppresses us socially, economically and politically?

Why don't they think that people can have relations with one another without the need for nation borders to exist (a bizarre concept which only divides people in the first place). If anything, even if they continue to think that you 'owe Britain' for the creation of Australia, what has the Queen or the current Royal family got to do with it, the British landed in Australia in the 18th century, now I know that parasite is old, but she's not that old.

Sorry, now that I re-read what I said, I dont mean nation. More of creating this "free and democractic society" (as percieved in their minds). The concept that the British colonialists created some idealistic multicultural paradise where peoples and races could live peacefully with one another or bullshit propaganda like that. They believe this and lap up the lies of the state about the recent attacks on Indian students in Melbourne, saying that Australia is not racist. Saying that the murders and assaults against the students were oppurtunistic rather than racially motivated. The great big lie about Australia is that it is a happy place, and that all Australians should be proud of it.

21st January 2010, 11:14

As for friendly relations with the Commonwealth, well for one, most commonwealth countries are Republics and perhaps more importantly Australia's main trading partners are China, Japan and the US. Not Britain.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/focus/081201_top10_twoway_exports.html
That's more or less what I was talking about when I said stuff about economic independence... from Britain, that is. As long as there is nationalistic sentiment among Australians, we will stay a part of the commonwealth. No other reason why.