4 ms·
It's backward because it's not representative democracy. It's inherited political power. Even if you don't believe they have real power, it's still offensive to
by mike-cardwell 13y ago
It's backward because it's not representative democracy. It's inherited political power. Even if you don't believe they have real power, it's still offensive to anyone that believes in representative democracy and selecting their leadership. Englishman here.
If we had ousted the monarchy 100 years ago, I'm absolutely certain that today, it would have been considered a good thing and we'd have a yearly celebration about getting rid of them, and we'd mock other countries for still being backwards and having a monarchy.
But no, we still have a monarchy, so "we" fool ourselves into thinking that it's a good thing. You can mostly blame patriotism for that.
- gaius 13y agoThen to who or what to allegiance be sworn? Can you imagine the horror if someone like Tony Blair was personally in charge of the military?
- KaoruAoiShiho 13y agoDon't you guys have a constitution?
- argumentum 13y agoNo, not a written one at least. Perhaps that's where they should start :)
- mike-cardwell 13y agoIf you really feel like you must swear allegiance to something, swear it to an ideal, not to a person or group. But if you feel like the armed forces need to swear allegiance to a person or group, why can't that be "the people" of the country they belong to? It's pretty much symbolic anyway.