(BIG grin)

The English “Volk” can not have an herediitary head of state – after all look at the terrible crimes against the German Volk, committed by members of the House of Hapsburg and the House of Wittelsbach. These Austrian and Bavarian Royals (amongst others) worked against the “Man of Destiny” Adolf Hitler himself – does this not prove their wickedness! Those impure of blood (such as the evil degenerate Paul Marks) must be gassed, and their remains turned into soap. That is true freedom! The freedom of the English Volk!

To be serious for a moment….

I think I can guess the real name of the person who wrote the confused mess you quote – at one moment supporting national independence, at the next moment denouceing wars approved by the Queen in Parliament as “illegal” (“illegal” under the rules of the United Nations – the sort of transnational government that he just denounced).

And at one moment proclaiming support for English traditions – whilst the next demanding a Republic (ignoring the fact that the Monarchy is at the heart of both British and English tradition).

If the writer is who I think it is – then he is a twat (there is no point in using delcate language about him). But the main problem is that he calls himself a “libertarian” and controls something that has the word “libertarian” in its title.

There is no reason, as this odious “Gary” character claims – why a consensual marriage – (key word being consensual) should be “parasitic” in the least. The sum is greater than the parts, etc. And indeed, Gary’s world seems to require people to avoid any kind of lasting relationships, whether romantic or commercial. Are business partners “parasitic”, on this PoV?

Of course, it is possible that Gary is a troll. But if you are sincere, Gary, then I suggest you go and get professional help. Your remarks are vile, and suggest to me that you are a badly damaged either by your own failed romantic efforts, by family, or simply due to some sort of mental problems.

I am serious. You sound monumentally fucked up. I am usually not wrong about these matters.

I would applaud a absolute monarchy that kept some semblance of order, by did little beside. There were many such monarchs in the past…
Also monarchs used to behead some of their ministers from time to time, which shows they weren’t so dumb…

I must say, I did not know William and the Duke of Edinburgh had fought in so many wars. Unless, of course, they were given medals without earing them, unlike the soldiers who die and suffer crippling injuries.

William only had three items on his uniform, his pilot wings (which he earned), the Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal (which everyone in the forces got) and the Garter Star (which, OK, his granny gave him )

The bulk of the medals Prince Philip has he earned in a little spat called World War II, including a Mention in Despatches for his actions during the Battle of Cape Matapan. That’s the equivalent of a Bronze Star with Valor clasp for any Americans reading.

Accepting a crap system just because you think it is not as crap as others shows a poverty of ambition and a depressing poverty of imagination. It’s the equivalent of sticking with a ZX Spectrum because it’s “simpler”. Given the British people despise imagination, its hardly surprising they are incapable of coming up with something better.

I want something better. Ideally, a computer or cyborg should be head of state. Far better to be unified by logic than idiotic sentimentality.
I’d prefer Hatsune Mikku to the Royals.

And to reiterate my earlier point, what has a relationship between two people got to do with the state? Nothing. Its an abomination; vows and certificates cheapen love, they make it mundane and kill it..

Family is not the bedrock of society, that’s utter twaddle spouted by God botherers. I would say friendships are more important than families.
Don’t you remember what Philip Larkin said about parents?

Start by eliminating all life peerages. By all means, get rid of the law lords (and of course that supreme court that only compounds the error). If the law is too complicated to be understood by people of average intelligence and knowledge, then simplify the law, don’t professionalize it. Some of you may think they were an improvement but all they really were was a turning over of the law to the lawyers. And to qualify for a seat in Lords, perhaps clarify that to count as a hereditary title, they must inherit it. Perhaps for several generations.

wh00ps makes a good point about the shell game and keeping track of who is the thief du jour being a lot easier when it is hereditary.

Another advantage is that the well-off and well-to-do (from birth) are less likely to turn out to be grasping thieving expense-abusing scumbags.

And if they do, guillotines are not too difficult to build. without switching to a new set of thieves and villains every five years, the public are likely to stay angry, and stay angry at the same people.

“Clarence House, which oversees the affairs of Prince William and drew up the broadcast contract with the BBC, issued a statement saying that it was “standard practice for these kinds of religious ceremonies to include a clause which restricts usage in drama, comedy, satirical, or similar entertainment programs.”

i.e. it’s not a legal ban on you doing your satire, just on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and other purchasers of the footage doing theirs.

Personally, I’d rather have IanB back. He had more intelligent things to say, and said them better.

Indeed, Ian was far more intelligent, and therefore far more destructive. I’ll take several Garys a week over Ian any week. Good riddance.