Debate: Should Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II be removed, along with all royals?
Side: No, God save the Queen.

And just why not?Because to claim that power must be a concession of the people is a valid argument only so long as one acknowledges that Her Majesty has any.In my opinion yes. The only fair hell is one the people have chosen.I wonder if you understand how the British system of governance works.Lifelong power simply for being born?The role of the modern British Monarch is to symbolise the nobility, the spirit and the magnificence of an edifice that has defined us for centuries. To preserve our history. To serve as an ambassador whose splendour and elegance cannot be matched by any other of the world's nations.It is not to govern, as you seem to believe. But would she act as commander and chief during the war or would her jurisdiction over military be handed over to a generals council?Obviously the actual strategy would be dictated by the officers of war. Nice one. Im using that next time I can.De rien.Depends if you view my stance as rights as a means of ensuring fair government that way. That is not the way I see it.Not my meaning, sir. I meant that you seem to suggest that the Monarch should be deposed based on principle, rather than technicality, in which case you should stop discussing her actual powers, which are far more limited than you apparently imagine. My suggestion is that the people need to design a system in which they hold elections that don't last for life n order to ensure the wants and opinions of following generations are honored and offered a chance.Again, here is the issue. The Queen has no legislative powers, so this quite simply is not a valid argument.Democracy has not existed since the greeks. It is an offense to the people.Perhaps I should use the term representation from here on in. Democracy as a pure system is not an effective from of governance and cannot maintain order and stability. It would breed chaos and strife. What exactly do you find appealing about that?Depends on how you define free. Freedom as a whole is interpretative. Freedom dictated by basic rights is less so.Free, in this context, means unbound by authority. But Man is predisposed towards authority, and constructs it wherever He goes. That is an evolved trait that is conducive to survival. The libertarian world that you propose would not last for long before the physically strong would be overwhelmed by the organised and intelligent.Considering no true democratic state exists, no.That is an evasive answer. Should representation and all other forms of government be destroyed based on the universal history of abuse?Such rights can be established on the grounds of knowledge of what happens when such rights aren't provided.Removing the government that protects and ensures the provision of rights is no way to maintain them. That is, as I see it, what this debate is ultimately about; the rejection of any authority beyond popular desire.The people, who more then often base them on rights not provided by previous authority.No, that is a circumstantial account. The rights of man stem, in Europe, from the Magna Carta, which was an effort on the part of the barons, the equivalent of an executive branch, to curb the powers of the King. Oliver Cromwell, one of the greatest men to have ever lived, finished the process. The result, a constitutional monarchy and parliamentarian system was created, by which we are still governed today. This is the proper form of governance, as I see it, and is wholly superior to the corporatocracy of the United States, the inevitable end of a purely democratic system under capitalism.It is the people who chose the rights.You have yourself declared this to be false, as there are no democracies.All have equal rightsAnd that is, precisely, none. There are no rights beyond those that are supported by those with the greatest strength.I am a believer in the survival of the fittest.As am I, but within an ordered society. I see the sustainment Sustenance. It is preferred to use a noun rather than a participle when referring to it with the definite article "the". As in "The resurrection of Christ", rather than "The resurrecting of Christ". I do not wish to be officious, but I think we should all strive for elegance in expression, especially in English, that most venerable and superior, king of all languages.to glorify an oppressive system without any irreplaceable vital importance to justify keeping it.If nothing more, they preserve something quintessentially English. You cannot expect to mourn its loss until it is gone.