Originally Posted by DGG

I will try to put it simple.

An individual right is a right that has the individual human as its subject. The right to private property is an individual right, since it is the right of the individual owner. Freedom of speech is also an individual right, when it is a right that everyone has without prejudice.

Collective rights are those that are given to some people not because each individual has earned it or it is given to everyone, but because the people having the collective right are lumped together as a collective.

Racist laws, such as the apartheid laws that used to be the law of South Africa and affirmative action laws, are laws of collective rights. Under such laws, you receive benefits or disadvantages based on your race or ethnicity.

A kolchos in the old Soviet Union is a prime example of collective ownership rights, the people living and working in the kolchos were joint owners of it. Konsum in Austria (at least before 1995, when it became insolvet) and the Coop Supermarket Group in Britain are examples of cooperatively owned companies, the members have collective ownership of the company. Depending on the by-laws of such companies, you can join and become a part owner without buying a share, then leave and lose your part ownership without receiving anything for your share.

Originally Posted by noahath

It's interesting though that although the US is a republic, it never seems to have really let go of a monarchic system. At the moment for example, 11 US senators have succeeded their brothers, husbands or fathers into the Senate; how many states have had multiple governors from the same family? Ohio, Illinois, Rhode Island and New Hampshire are the ones that most readily spring to mind. Politics in the US seems to be very much entrenched within inheritance. Would George W Bush have ever been considered for Governor, much less President if his daddy wasn't? Indeed, would George HW Bush have had the same opportunities if his father wasn't a senator? Would Evan Bayh have made it to the statehouse and senate if his dad wasn't Birch Bayh? Ted Kennedy certainly wouldn't have. I doubt Elizabeth Dole, Hilary Clinton, Judd Greg, John Sununu, Jay Rockefeller, etc would have made it also.

Originally Posted by noahath

Australia has been discussing the pros and cons of dropping the British monarchy and becoming a republic for some years now. Several years ago we had a constitutional convention followed by a referendum to determine if we would become a monarchy - which was defeated. However it is important to keep in mind that the idea wasn't defeated, but the proposal was. Most of the country acknowledges that it was a sham referendum which was designed to fail, largely by a staunch pro-monarchy Prime Minister (John Howard). I am one of those who supports a republic, but voted against the referendum because the model presented was absurd, and no one wanted to become "that" nation. We are in an election year this year in Australia and the opposition Labor Party (which has been dominating every poll for over a year now and almost everyone expects them to cruise to a massive landslide victory later this year) has already said that if (when) elected, they will hold another referendum, with a more logical and workable model.

I personally have nothing against the British monarchy at all; indeed, as a historian I love the monarchy from their historical point of view. However, they are not Australian; they rarely come to Australia; they know little about Australia; and are absolutely not representative of Australia. There was a controversy prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympics as to who would officially open the Games, as the Queen of England is our official head of state. Most of the country wanted an Australian to open the Australian Olympics, do it was alleviated by asking the Queen not to attend, and her representative in Australia - the Governor General - opened it instead. We were fortunate at that time to have had arguably our greatest Governor General ever, Sir William Dean, preside. If the same thing were to happen now I think there would be a national outcry as our present Governor General, Major General Michael Jeffrey isn't exactly loved by the country; and he follows a man (Peter Hollingworth) who was forced to leave office after it was revealed when he was an Arch Bishop he covered up sexual abuse of children by clergy). In the past seven years we've seen the highs and lows of Admiralty House (the Governor General's residence).

Australia as a nation is 219 years old, and has been an official nation in our own right for 106 years, yet we still cling to historical notions of the "motherland".

Anyway, after a long winded "essay-esque" response, my summarised version is that there is nothing wrong with the monarchy, or a monarchical government, but I just think it's time to stand on our own. Having said that, there are more pressing issues for us as a nation to worry about in the short term.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

I still have problems to see what practical difference a republic and a constitutional monarchy makes in this regard. As you said, there was Konsum in Austria, but as you say too Britain knows very similar kind of organisation too.

Originally Posted by DGG

Read again, see what you missed.

Konsum and the British Coop were just examples of cooperatively owned companies, distunguishable in this way from the majority of companies that are privately owned.

Originally Posted by White Rabbit

the quality and leadership skills of the monarch are essentially irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

...
PS:
Just being curious. Do you count Joints stock cooperations as cooperatively ownd companies? I mean they are legal entities in themselves and owned by many people.

Originally Posted by DGG

... Speaking about forms of government again, it can more adequately be compared to an aristocracy. In a corporation where the majority is owned by one individual or family, the minority owners can be compared to the nobility in an hereditary monarchy.

Originally Posted by iTaliAN_ICe

In what way? The monarch makes daily decisions that potentially affect the lives and liberties of the nation's citizens. Are you suggesting that the ability to make wise decisions does not fall in the realm of leadership? This may very well be so, but like the ability to lead, this ability isn't hereditary.

Originally Posted by DGG

I understand the wish of many Australians to get a Head of State of your own. However, why do you have to change the form of government at the same time? Is it really unthinkable to get a monarch of your own? You could, for instance, ask a prince or princess further back in the line to the British throne.

When Norway became fully independent in 1905, they picked a Danish prince, younger brother of the crown prince, to be king.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

Yes I dont doubt that. I simply cant see, in how far such differences effect in any way the monarchy vs republic.

Anyway. Call me stupid if you want, but I still cant see the practical difference. Perhaps another example oriented directly towards monarchy vs republic could show me any significant implication in regards to this issue?
...

Originally Posted by noahath

It's more to do with providing the opportunity for any Australian to be able to become the Head of State. Unlike the US, you don't have to be born here to become Prime Minister, and I think it's that kind of philosophy that Australian's aspire to. In other words, Australian's generally prefer equality and hence the "tall poppy syndrome" that runs rife here; no one should be a Head of State simply because they happened to have had the good opportunity to have been born.

Originally Posted by DGG

The practical difference is the same as between private and collective rights in other cases. I should have elaborated on this point earlier on in this debate (I do not always have to, such as when I take part in debates in the Conservative party of Sweden, of which I am a member and where virtually every other member are convinced of the benefits of private rights over collective rights).

It is in human nature to take care of your own property and other private rights that you have, than to take care of property that is jointly owned with others. Your own property gives you benefits, collective property gives you and the rest of the collective benefits. Many examples throughout history have shown this. For instance, the best kept land of Soviet Union kolchoses where the small patches of land that where privately owned by the various members of the kolchos.

In a republic, the Head of State has almost no personal stake in the State as such. He/she may very well have good morals and a wish to set a good record in history, but this is the only thing that can count as her/his personal stake. A monarch knows that his/her heir will take over the throne, therefore it is in the monarch's personal interest to act in the best manner possible for the State. Whereas a Head of State in a republic may take the chance to embezzle money from the State to her/his personal benefit and the benefit of his/her family, this is nothing that a monarch can benefit from, because a monarch only embezzles from his/her own State. It is as stupid as if the owner of a large company would embezzle money from the company. It is almost like embezzling money from yourself.

In earlier centuries, the throne and the State were often seen as the monarch's private property, thus taxes levied by the State could go directly into the pocket of the monarch. Nowadays, the State is generally seen as a legal person and the fortune of the State is a different thing than the fortune of the monarch. Nevertheless, the earlier century monarch still had a personal stake in the State, which is more than what a Head of State in a republic has.

Consequently, since a Head of State in a constiutional monarchy has a personal and family stake in the State, she/he is a better Head of State than the Head of State of a republic, who have no such stake.

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

For once an argument I understand. Thanks. It works in theory as well like this. In practice if you look at companies like the RAIKA bank in Austria, you will see that collective owned companies can act as efficient as private owned. Mostly because the differences in theory dont play a too large role in practice anymore, apart from a few details.

But thats just one point. We are comparing a powerless President to a powerless monarch. First of all, it will hardly make a difference anyway, as they do in practice, effectively not much more than good will missions and representation. Our current President really does his job to the full satisfaction of all parties and the people of Austria (except for the far right).

In opposition to a monarch he has a source of motivation a monarch has not (in this extend at least). He has to face the will of the people again.

After all, your collective/individual right argument is really of theoretic nature in my eyes. I mean the state does not really belong to your king/queen. Not really at least, what powers does he have (an owner without powers, is an owner in nothing but name)? Just for the name "owner" no one gets motivated to do much.

Originally Posted by DGG

You are correct in stating that if you have a powerless Head of State, the difference almost does not exist. I would like a Head of State with some political power, I am a supporter of the theory of separation of powers, which demands that the chief of the executive branch is separate from the legislative branch and has some real power.

On the other hand, even when the Head of State is powerless, there can be a difference between a monarch and a republican Head of State. I touched on this before in this debate in post #11, as an answer to Ductor Remigium, see also his answer to this in post #22. The thing is that the King of Sweden has a rather large personal fortune, part of which he uses to maintain the royal castles, despite the fact that these castles are State property and not his own property.