erinja:That guy in Tennessee whose house burned down because he forgot to pay the subscription fee for the fire service..

Amazing, in the negative sense. I thought this was an aspect of life in previous centuries in America that had been replaced by a public fire service, as free as public schools or libraries. Apparently not. Doesn't say much for the people that are responsible for letting this happen. They could have sent him a warning letter, or charged a double subscription on the spot as a penalty, without letting his house burn to the ground.

Miland:Amazing, in the negative sense. I thought this was an aspect of life in previous centuries in America that had been replaced by a public fire service, as free as public schools or libraries.

It was a bit of a complicated situation. We do have municipal fire services but apparently this fellow lived in a very rural area that was outside the official 'territory' of the local fire department. However, that department made its services available through a subscription fee ($75 per year).

Having said that, I had also never heard of a fire 'subscription' fee before, and I was aghast that this could happen (and that there were people on TV defending this action by the firefighters!).

erinja:We do have municipal fire services but apparently this fellow lived in a very rural area that was outside the official 'territory' of the local fire department. However, that department made its services available through a subscription fee ($75 per year).

In some rural areas there are regions that have no municipal service at all (such as where I grew up). Sometimes, the community would form a Volunteer Fire Department (VFD). We would hold fund-raisers and get donated equipment. Typically, a retired or former fire-fighter would provide periodic training and the VFD in my area would raise some money by selling street numbers or signs to help them find a residence quicker (not always a given in the area I lived).

For better or worse, rural America can be a bit different than most Americans have experienced. From personal experience, there is both good and bad. However, I choose to raise my children outside of the city limits so, I suppose, at least at some level, I feel the good outweighs the bad.

erinja:The difference between a corporation and a government is that we can vote the government out of power if we think they're doing bad stuff; we have no power to "vote out" the executives from Big Money Corporation Inc.

Regarding a monarchy, I actually like the idea of having a monarchy with no real power. Everyone in the country can support the Queen because she is a nonpolitical symbol of the country. You can support or not support the prime minister depending on your political leanings, but everyone can support the Queen. It provides a kind of unity that is missing in the US political system. Usually the way it works in the US is that the party of the president says "You have to support the president as a loyal American; it doesn't matter who's president, you have to support the presidency". The party in opposition to the president says "It is patriotic to state that you disagree with someone's policies, and while I support the presidency I disagree with this president and I strongly oppose his or her actions".

And then in the next election cycle, the political opponent of the president will trash the current president in an attempt to get elected, and there are bad feelings all around.

Therefore the US president is political in a way that the Queen really isn't. I think that the US could use a little unity in these hard economic times but instead we are determined to be at each other's throats so that even the most uncontroversial law couldn't get through Congress these days.

I felt sure that I saw an opinion piece to this effect in the Guardian recently but I'm unable to locate it again. Oh well!

The office of monarch can still divide people politically. There are many in the UK who want to abolish the monarchy in preference of a leader elected by the people. It's not so much that people are against the Queen as a person or as a leader, they are against the very institution that she stands for. A system based on class-privilege and leaders determined by nepotism rather than ability. You don't get much more political than that!

I can see some similarities between a corporation and government. The difference is that a government is a corporation where every voting adult is an equal shareholder. Corporations are democracies where each dollar represents a vote. Those with the most money have far more say than those without.

Of course that is a very simplistic analogy. Sadly in real life those with money have much more sway over governments than those without. But, in the words of Winston Churchill, 'No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.'

I grew up in a small unincorporated town with a volunteer fire department.

We didn't lock our doors when I was growing up. The town had few restaurants but a ton of churches. We frequently ran into people we knew at the supermarket. Most of the gravestones at the local cemetery had the same few "local" names on them. People spoke with a regional accent that was pretty different from what you found in Washington DC (only an hour away).

All services normally provided by a town were provided in this case by the county (police, etc) Though I lived near the center of town, we had no municipal water service or sewer, we had a well and a septic tank.

Though I grew up there, my family was not from there originally. My schooling in the town only went to third grade; for all schooling after that, I commuted to magnet programs in larger towns that were 20 minutes to an hour away. Those magnet schools were my ticket out. I found much more diversity of ethnicity and ideas, which really opened up my world. I loved going to my new friends' houses and trying new foods and learning about their ethnic or religious traditions. I continued to participate in community groups in my town but had trouble fitting in with the local kids, who tended to be very cliquish unfriendly once I was no longer at school with them.

My sister did all of her school in the town and ended up speaking with a slightly different accent than me.

I don't plan on having kids but I wouldn't choose to raise kids where I was raised. There's a big world outside of small towns and I would want my kids to experience the full diversity of it. The ignorance of some of the kids I grew up with was embarrassing, and I feel fortunate that I was given the chance to escape that.

erinja:I grew up in a small unincorporated town with a volunteer fire department.

Sounds similar to my area. We were a bit farther out (nearest town of 30k was about 20 miles away).

erinja:Those magnet schools were my ticket out. I found much more diversity of ethnicity and ideas, which really opened up my world. I loved going to my new friends' houses and trying new foods and learning about their ethnic or religious traditions.

The local school I was primarily educated in was fairly large (and an hour away). Kids from multiple small towns attended. We moved further out into the country for my senior year and I loved it (my graduating class was 40 people). I'm an outdoorsy person by nature and I could spend most of my days by myself in the woods fishing or hunting or just walking around. Perfect for me.

Most of my culture and education came from books I read outside of assigned work. School was not a challenge at all and I read my book selections underneath my desktop during most of my classes. I graduated with honors and got a high enough score on my ACT to get a full scholarship in-state. I went into the Army instead and got a different kind of education.

My family still lives in generally the same area. I speak differently and believe different things but, that wasn't because I left. Even if I still lived there today and had never left, I would not fit in (and, oddly, I never developed a strong southern accent).

erinja:I don't plan on having kids but I wouldn't choose to raise kids where I was raised. There's a big world outside of small towns and I would want my kids to experience the full diversity of it. The ignorance of some of the kids I grew up with was embarrassing, and I feel fortunate that I was given the chance to escape that.

Yes, there is a big world outside of small towns. My children experience that too, in controlled amounts. They are exposed to culture and taught to question ideas (their own, as well as their parent's and other adult's ideas). When they are finally on their own, I believe they will be well prepared to face whatever the world has to offer them (small town or big) and thrive.

I've known others that felt similar to you with regards to small towns. Some of them still live in one. Some moved away and are still unhappy. I suppose I'm saying that, in my opinion, it's more about the individual than the location (which fits nicely with my personal philosophy too so, maybe it's just wishful thinking).

BTW, count me as a 'no' vote for a monarchy (symbolic or not) for pretty much the same reasons as Alciona.

36lima:
BTW, count me as a 'no' vote for a monarchy (symbolic or not) for pretty much the same reasons as Alciona.

LOL. Actually, I was just presenting the republican movement argument to show that monarchies can be politically divisive. Personally I'm happy with a constitutional monarchy for the reasons outlined by Erinja! The Queen is a pretty benign figurehead. And while I dislike the notion of artistocracy, I also dislike lying, plotting and scheming politicians. The notion of one of them being head of state gives me the creeps. A constitutional monarchy balances out all of my dislikes for the least possible harm.

Alciona:are against the Queen as a person or as a leader, they are against the very institution that she stands for. A system based on class-privilege and leaders determined by nepotism rather than ability. You don't get much more political than that!

Yeah but to be honest, it's not like the Queen has all-out power. We can simply vote to become a republic if we want, which is pretty crazy.

I guess the problem is that normal people like to romantically see the royal family as somehow being above them, but when you think about it, there's no real benefit to bringing them down to our level or abolishing their institution, as then we'd end up paying a lot more for someone probably a lot less trustworthy, and likely a very manipulative speaker (after all, politicians rarely get in power through their good actions speaking for themselves, they need to tell the masses why they should be elected).

I think the British Royal family and the Pope, although many feel very free to throw flack at them with very simple emotionally based arguments that don't take into consideration the complexity of those two's positions, are things that are needed for a sense of grounding, an impartial group that can interfere when things go haywire by the hands of the lower classes (we like to think that the average worker is capable of anything a king could do, and that kings are incompetent, but in (funnily enough) a worker is only really capable of being a worker and a king is only really capable of being a king unless they choose to change what they are as a person).

If we were still in a feudal system where the monarchies and churches held the power they did, then that's different. But society has carefully chipped away and crafted those institutions into something both harmless and yet capable.

Anyway, a president-in-lieu-of-monarchy republic is basically a mirror of a monarchy, but instead of candidates being practically bred for the role, they're just people with loud voices and lots of fans.
Perhaps a prime minister - president - monarchy system would be effective, although I'm sure that's practically what Australia's PM - governor general - queen system is haha.

TL;DR, you'll have a class system headed by some omnipotent figure, but which one do you want? One that knows what they're doing (to be quite blunt) and knows what they're allowed to do (ironically, not much), or one who could have been easily living next door to you who has a 50% chance of being pretty damn average at his job. After all, we vote these people out for a reason don't we? .

The US has a big problem though, in that not having a monarchy, it makes it hard to, well, make one. Who'd be king after all? While I don't mind Obama, I doubt you'd want him as king! And what happens to the role of president? The whole constitution would require more rewriting than that other idea of the US becoming a clone of the EU And god help the police and whatnot should the British Monarchy return to power, I can't imagine how all the riots would go down

RE American local areas, seems like they need more focus than what they're given, similar to Australia. Decentralisation unfortunately seems to be likely stymied here since the National Broadband Network ain't quite as popular as it should be (I blame stultuloj who think only capability of fast internet is illegal stuff for geeks, who probably have never worked with computers other than to do those things themselves )

It's a bit late now to beg and plead for the Queen to take us back, isn't it? Truthfully I think most Americans are happy with things the way they are and they see monarchy as a very negative thing.

I don't believe that any person is born any "better" than anyone else but I recognize the value of having been brought up for a life of public service. I wouldn't want to be Queen myself, nor marry into the Royal family, but I have great respect for them. I guess I agree with the statement that a King can't be anything but a King and a worker can't be anything but a worker. I do prefer the idea of a King or Queen (with no real power, however) rather than a figurehead president like some countries have; those figurehead presidents are usually the most milquetoast politicians that you can imagine, and no one feels too strongly about them one way or another. What's the point?

Having said that, however, as for the 'aristocracy' of countries that are no longer monarchies, I feel it is their duty to stop claiming their titles and live as regular people (I'm looking at you, former royal family of Italy). Being 'royal' comes with certain obligations to your country, and once you are no longer in charge of that country, and you stop living a life that is 100% devoted to the service of your country, it is your duty to stop calling yourself by some fancy pants title and get a real job.

---

Most Republican arguments in the UK seem to come from a financial perspective, that the monarchy is a drain on public finances. I personally think that the monarchy draws in a ton of tourism dollars, and I personally see it as a profitable enterprise for the country! The other argument is of course that these old class distinctions are meaningless and outdated. I happen to agree with that one, but not enough to do away with an institution that I see to be a positive unifying influence on modern Britain. Never really thought of myself as a monarchist but with regard to the UK I guess I am.

erinja:
Regarding a monarchy, I actually like the idea of having a monarchy with no real power. Everyone in the country can support the Queen because she is a nonpolitical symbol of the country. You can support or not support the prime minister depending on your political leanings, but everyone can support the Queen. It provides a kind of unity that is missing in the US political system.
...
Therefore the US president is political in a way that the Queen really isn't. I think that the US could use a little unity in these hard economic times but instead we are determined to be at each other's throats so that even the most uncontroversial law couldn't get through Congress these days.

The current political system in Germany build up in Western-Germany after WWW2 in 1949 also has a kind of representative person who officially isn't allowed to handle any political matters. (But some did). This position is named Bundespräsident. For me that sounds slightly like that Queens responsibilities but without any historical (longlasting) monarchy background.

I'm pro an strong European Superstate with direct voted MEPs (maybe similar like the Swiss one) because in my opinion big cooperations only will debate with big states, not with small ones. Especially stock exchange listed companies don't feel lot of responsibility to support some kind of charity or even some kind of patriotism. I.e. selling arms to interest groups who will be capable to offence the society where that arms cooperations are headquarter and production factories are located. They are pro "bussiness first" mentality. I don't see a problem with that as long there excist a strong (Super-) state counterpart which will enable some kind of internal peace (in German: Betriebsfrieden) to let the society run well. I even see an kind of issue that big cooperations could feel attracted to buy the infrastructure of small countries what will mean they will be capable to control that small countries through hidden lobby work. That will undermine basic democratic principles in my opinion.