Wills and Kate

I can’t believe this is still going on. Oh wait this is STW, of course I can believe it.

I’m a republican, but the drivel, lunacy and ludicrous hyperbole spouted by (some)anti-monarchists on here beggars belief. I think they are in the pay of the ESTABLISHMENT, as fifth columnists, to discredit the perfectly reasonable arguments for abolition of the monarchy.

I’m off to plot the downfall of my elitist German overlords.

Well DrJ that would ignore the very substantive debate that exists on exactly that point

??? Are you confusing the ideal that people should be born with an equal chance to make the most of their genetic potential, like your very good but misguided footballers analogy with the idea of genetic variation within a population. Or are you just happy with the idea that the royals are better than the rest of us? If its the latter could you explain why?

Well DrJ that would ignore the very substantive debate that exists on exactly that point

Really? There is debate that everyone has equal worth as a person? I think you’d even be hard pushed to find a National Front member making that claim these days.

Haven’t read all of this but who’s odds on for the ban hammer?

No one I would hope its all been pretty well behaved as far as I can see.

No I just enjoy reading – broaden your horizons and try John Rawls A Theory of Justice. Written in 1971 but perhaps just a relevant today may be even more so. But be careful he makes basically the same point as me….

I wonder what his self worth was like?

Dr J standard Harvard text book – so hardly, worthy of such accusations. Try it and see. The flaws in meritocracy are interesting to read.

But be careful he makes basically the same point as me….

for clarity are you saying that human populations have genetic variation or that all people should not have equal chances in life given an ideal world?

Neither – I will return, but marking essays at the moment.

Hah – care to explain what Rawls’ thesis implies for the hereditary monarchy?

oh how enigmatic

No I will let your read it for yourself, it is worth the effort and very horizon expanding.

but cant you tell us what you mean oh wise one

Maybe it will tell us how black is actually the same as white. Or up the same as down.

I presume it tells us why the royals have divine right to rule and how they are aliens from another world so are better than us

On the contrary….

It could do, but since practically the first line in the Wikipedia précis is:

The First Principle of Justice

“ First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others

I suspect it does not.

There you go, horizon expanding isn’t it……

…no wonder Harvard used to have it as a core text even on their MBA programmes in the 70s and 80s. All those evil capitalists reading Rawls. I even kept my late father’s copy specially.

this is getting a bit silly now. Let me know when you are ready to enlighten me.

Thursday of next week, that will give you time to read it. Really must get back to an essay that needs some help to get a first with!

I have no wish to know what the book says I just want to understand what you are talking about but you refuse to elaborate.

Brilliant rhetoric, THM, you’ve obviously inherited great debating skills. Get back to us when you’ve got a cogent argument. Preferably your own – not one you adapted from a book.

I kept my late fathers copy of the Encyclopaedia of Modern Agriculture, does that mean I’m more equal or less equal than you?

Nice try – actually, I don’t fully accept Rawls argument (but find a lot of it very persuasive) but his account of why meritocracy is not the simple panacea that seems to be suggested above is very compelling. So I pick and chose from what he says – its quite expanding!

I still have no idea what your view is, do you?

Very interesting, but since the discussion is about the right of royalty to inherit power, it’s as relevant as a_a’s agriculture book. Still, enjoy your reading.

Its a number of volumes I’ll have you know and written by a Prof.

I suppose it explains why King Edward’s are superior to other potatoes.

and the chip on the shoulder [ THM you can apply that to whomever you mean its just a joke]

It seems odd to me that people can agree that queenie and charlie influence ministers and yet are shocked that someone considers this a form of oppression

Oppression is the wrong word they may have unfair advantages and misuse their power base but it is unfair, undemocratic rather than oppressive.

But be careful he makes basically the same point as me….

Yes that his how he describes his position too ..and some think you are arrogant 😉

I think you need to be clear here as well THM

1. by equal most mean – should be treated the same
2. By equal you seem to have said we are not identical

Take your pick straw man or fallacy of equivocation , I prfere the later criticism myself.

I am also not sure exactly what you wish to claim for his work either tbh the first principle is cited above

the second is

The Second Principle of Justice[edit]
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that (Rawls, 1971, p.302; revised edition, p. 47):
(a) they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society, consistent with the just savings principle (the difference principle).
(b) offices and positions must be open to everyone under conditions of fair equality of opportunity

I am not sure how a hereditary head of state fits in with either or why you think he says the same as you

Could you explain how he justifies a monarchy?

however, is that inequalities can actually be just on Rawls’ view, as long as they are to the benefit of the least well off. His argument for this position rests heavily on the claim that morally arbitrary factors (for example, the family one is born into) shouldn’t determine one’s life chances or opportunities

Its a long time since I read it but that is basically what I recall

or

Fair equality of opportunity requires not merely that offices and positions are distributed on the basis of merit, but that all have reasonable opportunity to acquire the skills on the basis of which merit is assessed.

TBH i think you have used the wrong thing with which to talk down to us- is that why you are refusing to engage?
It would be very interesting to see you argue that he supports the Royals or that his work does.

For the troll and/or hard of understanding, let me repeat

“On the contrary”….(ie he doesn’t)

Can hardly be clearer (even with my very limited rhetorical skills). Who mentioned straw men!

Oppression is the wrong word they may have unfair advantages and misuse their power base but it is unfair, undemocratic rather than oppressive.

I don’t see the difference but am happy to agree to differ. Oppression is the misuse of power, that there are obviously far worse missuses of power doesn’t change the fact.

For the troll and/or hard of understanding, let me repeat

“On the contrary”….(ie he doesn’t)

Can hardly be clearer (even with my very limited rhetorical skills). Who mentioned straw men!

which am I a troll or hard of understanding as I have no clue what point you are trying to make?

Join the club.

I stated that there was no substantive discussion possible on the subject of the right of royalty to rule if someone claims to believe that men are not born equal. THM pops up to tell me that there is indeed substantive discussion on that point, and points me to a book on an old reading list as though it proves his point. On further inspection, said tome proves to do no such thing, at whichjuncture THM says (I paraphrase) “I told you so !”

Confused? I think the last page of pointless quibbling rather proves my point about the lack of substantive discussion.

He means me a_a. Apparently replying to him is trolling _ given he accepted my point that is not my best reply 😳
I would not have typed that reply had I read that, apologies.

So you have used him to support your position [ he agrees with you] whilst accepting he does not support your position 😕

Fair enough then. I think that cleared that up

Like the others I dont understand your position either.

I’m lost…. oooh look ben hur is on………

Page 10

DrJ makes claim that if I cannot accept that people are not born equal then I have limited horizons and a lack of self worth and that no further substantive discussion is possible. To be precise

DrJ – Member
The idea that we are born equal is fanciful at best anyway

As I said pages ago, this is the heart of the issue. If you really believe that, I’m sorry for your limited horizons and lack of self-worth, but there’s really no further substantive discussion possible.

I rejected that, commenting that there is very substantial debate on this issue. Dr J rejected that in turn, with a claim that not even the NF would make such a suggestion.

I referred to a very respect academic to falsify this citing the fact that he makes exactly that claim and invited him and other to read it.

So to be clear.

We are not born equal
Meritocracy, while a nice idea, does not address this fundmantal problem
Rawls explains why

Not a sign of straw anywhere….

We are not born equal

no shit hence the thread.

your example of footballers was not a good illustration though as that is mostly down to genetic factors, hence my confusion that I do not know if you think genetic differences are the reason we are not born equal or if you are referring to socially inherited factors like royalty?
Or is it that we do not live in a meritocracy so we shouldn’t attempt to strive for one.

Rawls explains why

at least he does, any chance you could?

Except ….

We are not born equal

Rawls does not make this claim (still less does he say anything that supports the notion of a hereditary monarchy) and nor does anyone else with any credibility. So your whole argument is invalid. Otherwise, good point, well made.

Ok I get it now that you were countering that point.
No one is claiming we are all exactly the same just that we should all have exactly the same opportunity

I still think you are guilty of equivocating here as in my post.
A meritocracy does not try to eliminate difference it tries to ensure those best suited to the task do it based on the very differences in ability whilst giving everyone the equal chance to be the one chosen based on their talents. If we were all equal [ identical] in the sense you mean, there would be no merits.
The hereditary principle is the direct opposite of this approach as it is down to an accident of birth.

It may have some advantages that you can train them for the job to be fair etc.

No one is claiming we are all exactly the same just that we should all have exactly the same opportunity

That, but also, more fundamentally, that we are all born with the same worth as human beings, and one is not “born” to rule over another.