Tuesday, 4 December 2012

More beneficiaries’ babies

Astonishing news this morning that the world’s highest-paid beneficiaries just keep pumping out the babies, despite a history of scandal and abuse and abundant evidence that the offspring never stop snivelling at the trough.

Yes, turns out  the royal family are pumping out another sprog.

Just another mouth for the taxpayer to feed.



Blogger Kiwiwit said...

I find it highly offensive that this fetus is already deemed worthy to be our head of state one day, whereas my own children are not.

4 Dec 2012, 13:27:00  
Blogger twr said...

Why bother getting offended with things that don't matter?

4 Dec 2012, 14:31:00  
Blogger Kiwiwit said...

Defenders of the monarchy always say it doesn't matter, which apart from being a pretty pathetic argument for retaining it, is false. It absolutely mattered to the Whitlam Government and the Australian Labor Party in 1975 and even if the Crown never uses its reserved powers in this dictatorial manner again, it still matters as a point of principle.

If you concede the principle that this dysfunctional family 12,000 miles away has a divine right to rule over us, then you concede any moral right to self-determination, both national and personal.

4 Dec 2012, 16:10:00  
Blogger twr said...

Give a single example of any "ruling" done by the (no more dysfunctional than most) family 12,000 miles away in the last five decades and I might consider agreeing with you.

Otherwise it's a whimsical anachronism that we don't pay a cent for, and 74% of the British people are happy to keep and fund.

4 Dec 2012, 17:18:00  
Blogger Kiwiwit said...

I've already given you the example of the sacking of the Whitlam Government, and if you believe that Governor General Kerr did this without the Queen's close agreement, then you don't understand how these things work.

If you want an even worse example and are prepared to look just a few decades earlier, George VI's active involvement in the appeasement of Hitler (as well as his brother Edward VIII's even more blatant support for the Nazis) is well-documented.

4 Dec 2012, 18:27:00  
Blogger twr said...

So nothing then.

4 Dec 2012, 23:55:00  
Blogger Mark said...

@Kiwiwit: Removing Whitlam and his out of control spending was a good thing. If that's all you've got I might need to become a monarchist.

5 Dec 2012, 06:17:00  
Blogger Greig said...

@twr I'm surprised at your stance on this, given your general support of maximum liberty. Are you saying it's OK to leave something in place which could restrict freedom just because it hasn't been used to do so (in a manner which meets your requirements over a time period you define as acceptable)?

If yes, then that's OK, I disagree with you, but then at least I know your stance on it! :)

5 Dec 2012, 08:05:00  
Blogger twr said...

I'm pretty sure that if they did try and use any of the power that they theoretically have, they'd be gone by lunchtime. Since they haven't actually done so for over a century, I'm not going to lose any sleep. There are so many things that *do* restrict our liberty that there's no point getting upset about things that *might* but almost certainly won't.

5 Dec 2012, 08:25:00  
Blogger opit said...

The Queen's representative in Canada - the Governor General - still retains interesting powers - one of which is to dissolve government and appoint a new one. Steve Harper used that to buy time against an opposition coalition while a new leader for the Lieberals was sent up from the USA a few years back...around this time of year too !

BTW Your copyright notice. Since I am using RSS to repost your headers, we should agree such is being done properly if redistribution is to continue. opit@operamail.com

5 Dec 2012, 08:35:00  
Blogger Greig said...

@twr Fair enough too, I'm not implying you should have to worry about it, merely that it's consistent with liberty to recognise that it can and does matter to some that this state of affairs exists. You might not worry, Kiwiwit does. I see why, and support that worry, pleased that someone is noting these things. :)

5 Dec 2012, 10:17:00  
Blogger twr said...

One could argue that from a libertarian standpoint, a position whose role is mostly ceremonial but occasionally constitutional might be best filled by someone who is immune from the influence of bias resulting from the need to be elected by the voting public.

If there was a constitutional crisis and the government had to be reined in, wouldn't you want that to be done by someone who has no political bias? Someone who, perhaps, had no vested interest in the result, maybe didn't even livein the country, and could therefore make a decision based solely on the constitution (or what bits of common law might pass for one).

Furthermore, the removal of the crown as head of state would, as we know, open the door to the screeching of those who want the playing field tilted about 89 degrees in their favour, so any change is almost certain to be for the worse as far as liberty is concerned.

Anyway, for now, a pretty girl is (hopefully safely) having a baby, and it doesn't need to provoke faux outrage from people who like being "offended" about unimportant things.

5 Dec 2012, 11:25:00  
Blogger Greig said...

Heh. Nice argument. That said, it's a little "benevolent dictator" (or possibly uncaring dictator?) for my tastes. Nope, I still think the best decision for me is that made by me. Not by anyone else, no matter how detached, neutral, or uncaring.

But yes. Look at the pretty lady having a baby!

5 Dec 2012, 21:57:00  
Blogger twr said...

If it's ginger you might get your way. What populace wouldn't overthrow a ginger monarch?

Co-incidentally, the capcha for this is very very close to "ingsoc".

6 Dec 2012, 08:09:00  
Blogger twr said...

@Greig : I don't see it that way. A dictator makes the rules. An independent arbiter just enforces them. The royal family haven't made the rules for a long time.

6 Dec 2012, 12:55:00  
Blogger Greig said...

@twr Fair point, if true. I really don't know enough about the constitutional monarchy setup the UK (and thus, ourselves) have in order to know if the monarch does have that power. I'll trust you as I'm too busy today to research it! ;)

7 Dec 2012, 10:18:00  
Blogger twr said...

Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Constitutional_role

It's a good summary.

For example: "In theory, assent can either be granted (making the bill law) or withheld (vetoing the bill), but since 1707 assent has always been granted."

7 Dec 2012, 12:20:00  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home