Stephen Fry is largely correct about monarchies, though he missed out Spain, Canada and Australia in his list. I think the main factor is where the head of state has little political power, for example the Republic of Ireland and Switzerland.
Germany has a symbolic President too, the man does Jack shit. He‘s really only there for crises as the last one with Real Powers made hitler chancellor.
That’s an interesting thought but i must counter, parliamentary republics still tend (emphasis on tend) to not perform as well as their royal counterparts, there are exceptions like Ireland or Finland, just as there are highly democratic presidential countries too like Uruguay, but these countries are quite exceptional and uncommon & also are succeeding only so far the situation might change in the future unfortunately, we don’t know. It seems royalty just throws a few points in the right direction; so on average when dealing with relatively similar countries the ones with royals are more likely to turn out a bit better. Also Switzerland actually has very unusual system; they don’t have either pm/president instead they have a 7 member ruling council: drawn from multiple parties but independent from party leaders. I think they’re the only ones with anything like it
The countries which still have kings and queens are blessed. As an American, trust me, I wish we had had better options. Don’t throw away your opportunity to be a part of something so precious. God Save the King, our former Queen Elizabeth II, and all the monarchs before who I like to think are still watching over us.
Fry is not being a empiricist here but rather a tepid conservative (in his formulation it feels like a Burkean equation of rationalist = Revolutionary is lurking in the background). He is rich and successful and gets a treasured invitation to coronations. Why would he mess with that honor? But don't say your empiricism not your privilege decided the issue for you without reflecting on how easy that was. Bringing in Newton is actually a very unempirical thing to do (what does it prove exactly? 5 Nordic Monarchies add up to more freedom?) Has he seriously read the Republican literature? Doesn't sound like it (yet). Has the UK Monarchy been an engine of freedom, if that is the value he is most concerned with; has it helped preserve the freedoms we have? These questions are not being asked but already answered by him, but the paradox remains: how can an unfree, enormously privileged, exclusionary, based on blood not merit, relic of an institution aid freedom and represent the whole nation? How can social justice be promoted by an institution that is exempt from some of the most vital basic laws and obligations of every other citizen/subject? There is a brutally empirical answer: it just has in the case of the UK, don't look any further into the matter. So his thinking on this topic is not very good as a result. Thinking doesn't mean believing the UK is ripe for Republicanism. It isn't. I have no illusions there. The UK system as been a monarchy with one brief exception for over a thousand years. It is almost unimaginable without it. There is no pressing Edward VIII/ traitor crisis; there is no monarchical interference in politics (Gough Whitlam) or lawbreaking crisis (Juan Carlos). My Working -Class Labour-voting family was staunchly monarchist if you asked them about it. Empirically did those countries which abolished their monarchies improve as a result? Hard to say. It may not even be possible to say. Stalin/Tsar Nicholas, Victor Emmanuel/Christian Democrats, Louis XVI/The Assembly/Robespierre/Napoleon, The Last Bourbon/the Third Republic etc etc. But the key factor is surely not the monarchy but constitutional democracy. With the latter a Monarchy is fine, without it a Monarchy can be bad but not as bad as an authoritarian dictatorship. Wilhlem II/Hitler/the Bundesrepublik And what about King Leopold of Belgium? Constitutional at Home, genocidal killer abroad? But we're talking about the UK. A particular case. Empirically speaking anyway, it is not going to happen. The Monarchy is here to stay. Fry doesn't register the problem of inertia, let alone social coercion and ideology. But empiricism also means a willingness to experiment. Ireland got rid of the Monarchy as soon as it could, what were the results? Australia may do so the next time around. If Scotland is ever independent it may well do so too. The point is once certain hard realities and ingrained restraints are removed, ending the Monarchy would be a distinct possibility. For Ireland the Monarchy was a hated imperial oppressor, for Australia foolish nostalgia (surely both are right from their perspective). If the British people as a whole were more outraged by Royal privileges that would be true too. Since Cromwell there has been no significant revolutionary tradition in the UK. So this outrage turns to fog in the Murdoch Sun or doesn't seem important, even entertainment. It hasn't happened yet, why not? An empiricist should at the very least ask themselves that question. The empiricism amounts to 'The Monarchy and Established religion do no harm so keep them.' First, he hasn't examined the harm they do in the UK at all just said that they do not make things worse, not very empirical there, how does he know that? Second, he hasn't considered the alternatives and the issue of whether we could do better without them, not very free there. If we got rid of the monarchy would our freedom then be less? If we no longer had a State Church would religious belief increase? Third, what about our right to challenge the system we have? Why isn't a republic an option, why does it seem so laughably off the table? Surely part of freedom is to have a real discussion, or even suggest a referendum at some point. We do know empirically that you do not need a constitutional monarchy to preserve our cherished liberties. And of course the UK DOES NOT HAVE A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, over time the PM took over the King's Royal Prerogative, Parliament took over royal Sovereignty and the modern constitution, real and effective though it is in practice, is an ill-defined set of laws, assumptions and practices that has not as yet had to weather a serious crisis. Would we be better off WITH one and if not why not? Of course Republicans would not win that referendum, at least in 2023, but thinking otherwise would be elevated to respectability. Silly arguments would get winnowed out, free people would reflect in greater numbers, we might consider some constitutional experiments more regularly and see where they take us (that is part of what empirical means). On the other side we can assess the risks to political stability, national identity, continuity and yes tourist receipts if we get rid of it. He has I think assumed, not very empirically, that the latter outweigh the former (that he hasn't entertained at all). If we threw ourselves down the toilet with an unnecessary and destructive referendum, Brexit, foisted on us by Conservative party Politics does this mean more sensible and less politicized ones should be shelved forever? There is no necessary correlation between constitutional monarchy and freedom. The UK is not freer than Ireland, or France, or Germany. A State Church obviously can impinge on freedom in various ways even in the UK however minimally (presumably a Hindu or atheist could not be the Monarch for instance).Take away the constitutional part and the argument falls away immediately (Hirohito was both types). In the world today monarchy by itself does no better than any other system in terms of freedom. Having a monarch indeed doesn't prevent freedom, true enough in some cases. Having a State Church doesn't necessarily prevent a high level of atheism in some cases, true enough, and a Constitution-based Republic may have high levels of religious belief (the US) but why have a State Church at all? The levels of belief cannot be predicted by those political arrangement alone or indeed at all. What are the disbenefits of having a monarchy in the UK? Economically, culturally, politically. That is the question. Monarchies are accidents of history. They can serve good functions of course (Juan Carlos replacing Franco) in certain cases, but that is not why we are keeping the UK monarchy. If there is no political reason for keeping it, say a risk of anarchy or authoritarianism, then 'it is doing no harm' doesn't cut it, especially if you have not considered the harms it does. If it ain't broke don't fix it is, in this context, a conservative position and lazy thinking to boot, not worthy of Fry.
@@matiasmartinez8809 You're basing that purely on what you are told, not the reality. Take the recent covid response: the US was as harsh as any Western jurisdiction, in fact harder in many regards (eg: mandatory vaccination to attend college). You also have to appreciate that what a country calls itself has little bearing on the way it functions. Unless you believe China is a Republic, or the Nazis were actually socialists. My point is, you need to dig deeper than a name. The US functions more & more as an elected dictatorship by the day.
This glib response to Fry’s argument reeks of ideological obstinacy. His entire point is to refute the notion that only republicanism leads to freedom, equality and so forth.
The thing about Stephen Fry is that, although from a purely superficial perspective he's correct, and fundamentally he is logical, I think he's underinformed because think about it: "74% of Americans think Angels walk on the bloody Earth!" which, when taken at face value if of course appalling, but then if you instead of taking things at face value you think of things in terms of not-face value, then you start considering things like : what if those "74%" of Americans were being metaphorical when they said that? Also think about it nummerically: there were 327million,210thoushand and 198 Americans in 2016 (I'm not sure precisely when this video clip was originally filmed or precisely when that 74% statistic was made from but my best guess is sometime near 2016) now 70% of that number is...over 230million humans. Assuming where Stephen got that number for was referring to specifically adults (which would've been thereabouts of 240-250 million total in the usa, and assuming that the 70% was referring to those adults) can you imagine such a number of people taking the time to say "I believe that angels literally are real"? Of course not. It's far more probable that either a poll of, at most a few thousand people online or in person or through physical mail answered the question of "do you believe angels are real?" and the percentage of that thousand was 74% and they projected that percentage onto the hundreds of millions of Americans. The odds are that most people were they to find such a poll online or on the street or through the letterbox, simply wouldn't have answered at all and they deliberately discounted that lack of answer in their polls. Added to which, how do we know that said statistics haven't been falsified? Furrthermore: if you cherry pick your audiences, for example going to a church and asking people in person "do you believe that angels are real?" then obviously you're going to get a larger percentage of people saying "yes", especially if they did so without being aware that they were being taken literally or as part of a poll. Plus, we don't know if those people who took part in the poll were being honest or were lying for some reason or many. So yeah, statistics can be misleading in many ways. This is the difference between Snow White and the Evil Queen: the Evil Queen shuts herself off from the rest of the world and instead of formulating her own views and venturing out into the world to find reality for herself, she goes "mirror mirror on the wall tell me all" and takes said mirror at it's word and at face value and of course becomes shallow and petty, whereas snow white goes out into the world and experiences the world of ordinary strangers, takes the truth straight from the horse's mouth and grows into her own person. Over simpliefed statistics are the mirror mirror on the wall which can make us clever but not smart, and the real world is the multi-personality dwarves that we have to get used to and learn to navigate by ourselves if we are to get smart.
These aren't the monarchies he's talking about, those are absolute monarchies. I think you're missing Russia, Hungary, Serbia, Turkey, China, Pakistan, and all the other host of non-monarchical governments that perform awfully in freedom indexes. 6 of the 10 freest countries are constitutional monarchies and 9 of the top 20. and of the worst 20, only 1 is a monarchy. His point, which you seem to have missed, is that being a monarchy doesn't affect a country's ability to be free, both monarchical and non-monarchical systems of government can be free, or can be despotic.
@@leovolpe934 You're the one cherry picking. If you want to talk about Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the UAE, Thailand, Bhutan, and Jordan (Iran is not a monarchy and hasn't been since 1979), then you also need to talk about Norway, Sweden, Denmark, The UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, The Netherlands, Belgium, Japan and so forth. Again, the point is that the existence of a monarchy does not make a country any less free than a republic.
@@gammamaster1894 Iran is not a monarchy because of an authoritarian coup driven by the monarchy to get in charge (coup sponsored by uk & usa) wich than caused a revolution, if it were not for the monarchy there is a fat chance that Iran today would be, if not a democracy at least a much freer and more liberal state than it is now. And yes, Fry is cherry-picking because he bases his thesis only on cases in wich the monarchy either chose or was forced to step down from a position of power and authority, without considering all the other occasions in wich things went the opposite way.
He missed out Saudi Arabia and some other Arab countries. Also, in the UK the police are arresting people for holding up signs that say "He is not my King".
Saudi Arabia isn’t a constitutional monarchy So I will say back to you, in North Korea you go into concentration camps when you criticise the government!
Amazed by some of the commenters who have misunderstood his argument. He makes his point clearly at 0:44 - 0:51 that having a monarchy doesn't stop you from being free. Denmark, Sweden etc prove this. Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the UAE don't disprove this point at all.
I thought Stephen Fry was supposed to be intelligent. This is a bizarre obfuscation of the facts by using some vague concept of "social justice" when clearly a monarch is exactly the opposite of social justice, it's inherently social privilege and cannot be anything other, no matter what social conditions are more broadly.
Social Justice isnt a 'vague concept'. If its equality you are after - the only truely equal society in the world is North Korea - where everyone has nothing. The true goal of the socialists.
@@AndyDrudy socialism literally means the workers controling the means of production it doesn't just mean equality, it means no longer having the ownership class lazing around doing nothing while they make obscene amounts of money off our work, but it has fuck all to do with social justice. Socialism is economic justice not social justice. Social justice is a vague concept because it's almost impossible to come to an exact definition of it, let alone knowing how to measure it. Social Justice is different from equality you can tell because they are two entirely different terms.
Who’s obfuscating, exactly? You’re reducing the concept of social justice to a single person or family in power, while simultaneously dismissing the concept as vague. Not only does this not work as a logical argument, it begs the question as to what your priorities are, if the freedom, equality and prosperity of society are considered peripheral to the inherited status of one head of state.
@@Ludd439 Dude. They are the one bringing in the capital, bearing risks and shit. Be an successful entrepreneur and come back rather than sitting at home and doing absolutely nothing. What a wasted sperm
Let's see Fry apply the same logic to his other little passions. "Some of the most peaceful and successful nations have Christianity at the heart of their government. It may be silly, but it just works! Empiricism tells us a state religion is something to embrace!"
Utterly stupid take. eSwatini, a brutally repressive state, has a King. Brunei, an absolute monarchy, has a King. Bahrain has a monarchy. Vatican City is a monarchy. Stephen Fry has unfortunately done some great cherry picking in his arguments.
The fact that Fry didn’t list every single candidate country is not an example of cherry-picking. You’d be hard-pressed to find a constitutional monarchy which didn’t pass the empirical tests that he laid out.
Why isn't separation of church and state a good thing Mr Fry? Separating church and state means not allowing the church to posses a coercive monopoly to enforce their religion on others by using violence..... Look at what happened before the separation of church and state, Religious wars were everywhere.
I think you missed the point, he was saying its beautifully absurd that empirically speaking the UK is more secular even though we have less separation of church and state
@@jakemercer1528 Not just less: NONE! Our head of state is expressly defined at the highest religious authority. He is the head of the Church of England. It's like if the US president had to lead the Mormons
Clearly Mr Fry is showing a great example of cognitive bias and equivocation fallacy here, the examples that contradict this preposterous claim are manifold. While he is sat there the nearest foreign country to him (France) observes the principle of laïcité. The absolute separation of church from state, their welfare and health system (ranked #1 by the WHO) is a huge part of social justice. A quick google search of countries with monarchs makes his assertion not look just biased but borderline idiotic.
He very clearly states the having a Monarchy does not mean you must have a monarch to have greater levels of soial justice etc etc. Perhaps you didn't hear that bit
@@AndyDrudy he said "countries that have kings and queens which are rationally stupid weird ideas are empirically freer and more socially just than countries that don't." Plainly absurd. Should we really compare Morocco, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain Cambodia and Thailand with Germany, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand and Canada?
@Moonraker Hosting and supporting the descendants of incestuous parasites is very different from putting up with them as a 'figurehead'. Unfortunately NZ, AU and Canada have parasites modeled in the same style that they like to lean on, very effective amongst the demographic that doesn't even remotely understand it's history.
@@sjbechet1111 He was referring to CONSTITUTIONAL monarchies. You spit feathers with your republicanism because you are void of any and all culture. That will always lose you the argument.
A bit of a strange closing statement. If you believe in the existence of God, there’s no reason why you wouldn’t also believe in the existence of angels.
Not really I don't believe in God but the origin of the universe is fundamentally mysterious whereas Angels that walk on this earth provably do not exist.
@@superman00001 I'm saying that whilst both have no evidence for their existence, the possibility of God is more believable than Angels, so its understandable that some people believe one and not the other.
@@steadyeddie9318 Being incredulous that some people believe in both God AND angels is a bit like being incredulous that some people believe in both apple trees AND apples.
His argument is focused on constitutional monarchies and comparisons with similar countries though so it still stands. Also Japan is quite democratic, the democracy index often lists them in the top 20
I find it odd that in order to make their monarchy sound better, along with the enmeshment of church and state, that he had to bash the USA in the process . Fry is a monarchist and England just loves their class system.
The US system seems to be bashing itself you have far more homelessness, incarceration, inequality and lack of free healthcare than anywhere in the developed world.
@@Fordnan - Meh. In spite of Canada being a “Constitutional Monarchy”, the monarch, and their Canadian representatives (Governor-General and Lieutenant-Governors) hold no legislative, judicial, or executive power. Beyond those of pageant, ritual and ceremony.
@@johnspooner1403 That's what they say here in Britain, too. And yet they have the power to vet and veto debate in the house of commons, vet and amend legislation before it enters parliament, refuse assent to legislation passed by parliament, assent to legislation voted down by parliament, and to ultimately prorogue parliament. It's how the establishment shorted our democracy and 'got brexit done' without the necessary due process being carried out by parliament. I rather suspect you're kept in the dark about the powers the monarchy hands your establishment, too.
@@Fordnan Simply, no. Britain, yes. But Canada is not part of GB. It isn’t even a colony anymore. It is a “Commonwealth Realm”, and since the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 patriated the British North America Act, 1867 to Canada , thus ending any Canadian dependence on the Parliament of Westminster and further defined our complete independence. So, figurehead.
@@johnspooner1403 I don't know the details of what power the monarch retains in Canada. I know you are in the minority in Canada, and according to some polls you would be even here. Canada's abolition of the monarchy will be an important first step in ending it across the 'commonwealth', including here, so good luck to your compatriots. You're always free to retain an unelected hereditary head of state if you choose to do so democratically, and get consent every generation.
@@mississippirougarou He comes from a jewish family, but he's very much an atheist, and has been in multiple debates against religious people where he's spoken about atheism.
Stephen Fry is largely correct about monarchies, though he missed out Spain, Canada and Australia in his list. I think the main factor is where the head of state has little political power, for example the Republic of Ireland and Switzerland.
Germany has a symbolic President too, the man does Jack shit. He‘s really only there for crises as the last one with Real Powers made hitler chancellor.
That’s an interesting thought but i must counter, parliamentary republics still tend (emphasis on tend) to not perform as well as their royal counterparts, there are exceptions like Ireland or Finland, just as there are highly democratic presidential countries too like Uruguay, but these countries are quite exceptional and uncommon & also are succeeding only so far the situation might change in the future unfortunately, we don’t know. It seems royalty just throws a few points in the right direction; so on average when dealing with relatively similar countries the ones with royals are more likely to turn out a bit better.
Also Switzerland actually has very unusual system; they don’t have either pm/president instead they have a 7 member ruling council: drawn from multiple parties but independent from party leaders. I think they’re the only ones with anything like it
Look into why those countries got rid of their monarchies and there’s your answer.
The countries which still have kings and queens are blessed. As an American, trust me, I wish we had had better options. Don’t throw away your opportunity to be a part of something so precious. God Save the King, our former Queen Elizabeth II, and all the monarchs before who I like to think are still watching over us.
Fry is not being a empiricist here but rather a tepid conservative (in his formulation it feels like a Burkean equation of rationalist = Revolutionary is lurking in the background).
He is rich and successful and gets a treasured invitation to coronations. Why would he mess with that honor? But don't say your empiricism not your privilege decided the issue for you without reflecting on how easy that was. Bringing in Newton is actually a very unempirical thing to do (what does it prove exactly? 5 Nordic Monarchies add up to more freedom?) Has he seriously read the Republican literature? Doesn't sound like it (yet). Has the UK Monarchy been an engine of freedom, if that is the value he is most concerned with; has it helped preserve the freedoms we have? These questions are not being asked but already answered by him, but the paradox remains: how can an unfree, enormously privileged, exclusionary, based on blood not merit, relic of an institution aid freedom and represent the whole nation? How can social justice be promoted by an institution that is exempt from some of the most vital basic laws and obligations of every other citizen/subject? There is a brutally empirical answer: it just has in the case of the UK, don't look any further into the matter.
So his thinking on this topic is not very good as a result. Thinking doesn't mean believing the UK is ripe for Republicanism. It isn't. I have no illusions there. The UK system as been a monarchy with one brief exception for over a thousand years. It is almost unimaginable without it. There is no pressing Edward VIII/ traitor crisis; there is no monarchical interference in politics (Gough Whitlam) or lawbreaking crisis (Juan Carlos). My Working -Class Labour-voting family was staunchly monarchist if you asked them about it. Empirically did those countries which abolished their monarchies improve as a result? Hard to say. It may not even be possible to say. Stalin/Tsar Nicholas, Victor Emmanuel/Christian Democrats, Louis XVI/The Assembly/Robespierre/Napoleon, The Last Bourbon/the Third Republic etc etc. But the key factor is surely not the monarchy but constitutional democracy. With the latter a Monarchy is fine, without it a Monarchy can be bad but not as bad as an authoritarian dictatorship. Wilhlem II/Hitler/the Bundesrepublik And what about King Leopold of Belgium? Constitutional at Home, genocidal killer abroad?
But we're talking about the UK. A particular case.
Empirically speaking anyway, it is not going to happen. The Monarchy is here to stay. Fry doesn't register the problem of inertia, let alone social coercion and ideology.
But empiricism also means a willingness to experiment. Ireland got rid of the Monarchy as soon as it could, what were the results? Australia may do so the next time around. If Scotland is ever independent it may well do so too. The point is once certain hard realities and ingrained restraints are removed, ending the Monarchy would be a distinct possibility. For Ireland the Monarchy was a hated imperial oppressor, for Australia foolish nostalgia (surely both are right from their perspective). If the British people as a whole were more outraged by Royal privileges that would be true too. Since Cromwell there has been no significant revolutionary tradition in the UK. So this outrage turns to fog in the Murdoch Sun or doesn't seem important, even entertainment. It hasn't happened yet, why not? An empiricist should at the very least ask themselves that question.
The empiricism amounts to 'The Monarchy and Established religion do no harm so keep them.' First, he hasn't examined the harm they do in the UK at all just said that they do not make things worse, not very empirical there, how does he know that? Second, he hasn't considered the alternatives and the issue of whether we could do better without them, not very free there. If we got rid of the monarchy would our freedom then be less? If we no longer had a State Church would religious belief increase? Third, what about our right to challenge the system we have? Why isn't a republic an option, why does it seem so laughably off the table? Surely part of freedom is to have a real discussion, or even suggest a referendum at some point. We do know empirically that you do not need a constitutional monarchy to preserve our cherished liberties. And of course the UK DOES NOT HAVE A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION, over time the PM took over the King's Royal Prerogative, Parliament took over royal Sovereignty and the modern constitution, real and effective though it is in practice, is an ill-defined set of laws, assumptions and practices that has not as yet had to weather a serious crisis. Would we be better off WITH one and if not why not?
Of course Republicans would not win that referendum, at least in 2023, but thinking otherwise would be elevated to respectability. Silly arguments would get winnowed out, free people would reflect in greater numbers, we might consider some constitutional experiments more regularly and see where they take us (that is part of what empirical means). On the other side we can assess the risks to political stability, national identity, continuity and yes tourist receipts if we get rid of it. He has I think assumed, not very empirically, that the latter outweigh the former (that he hasn't entertained at all). If we threw ourselves down the toilet with an unnecessary and destructive referendum, Brexit, foisted on us by Conservative party Politics does this mean more sensible and less politicized ones should be shelved forever?
There is no necessary correlation between constitutional monarchy and freedom. The UK is not freer than Ireland, or France, or Germany. A State Church obviously can impinge on freedom in various ways even in the UK however minimally (presumably a Hindu or atheist could not be the Monarch for instance).Take away the constitutional part and the argument falls away immediately (Hirohito was both types). In the world today monarchy by itself does no better than any other system in terms of freedom. Having a monarch indeed doesn't prevent freedom, true enough in some cases. Having a State Church doesn't necessarily prevent a high level of atheism in some cases, true enough, and a Constitution-based Republic may have high levels of religious belief (the US) but why have a State Church at all? The levels of belief cannot be predicted by those political arrangement alone or indeed at all. What are the disbenefits of having a monarchy in the UK? Economically, culturally, politically. That is the question. Monarchies are accidents of history. They can serve good functions of course (Juan Carlos replacing Franco) in certain cases, but that is not why we are keeping the UK monarchy. If there is no political reason for keeping it, say a risk of anarchy or authoritarianism, then 'it is doing no harm' doesn't cut it, especially if you have not considered the harms it does. If it ain't broke don't fix it is, in this context, a conservative position and lazy thinking to boot, not worthy of Fry.
Correlation doesn't equal causation.
Well, he said that, didn't he.
In this case, it does. The issues are linked because it is the political system that is creating the free & open societies.
@@matiasmartinez8809 You're basing that purely on what you are told, not the reality. Take the recent covid response: the US was as harsh as any Western jurisdiction, in fact harder in many regards (eg: mandatory vaccination to attend college).
You also have to appreciate that what a country calls itself has little bearing on the way it functions. Unless you believe China is a Republic, or the Nazis were actually socialists. My point is, you need to dig deeper than a name. The US functions more & more as an elected dictatorship by the day.
This glib response to Fry’s argument reeks of ideological obstinacy. His entire point is to refute the notion that only republicanism leads to freedom, equality and so forth.
The thing about Stephen Fry is that, although from a purely superficial perspective he's correct, and fundamentally he is logical, I think he's underinformed because think about it:
"74% of Americans think Angels walk on the bloody Earth!" which, when taken at face value if of course appalling, but then if you instead of taking things at face value you think of things in terms of not-face value, then you start considering things like : what if those "74%" of Americans were being metaphorical when they said that?
Also think about it nummerically: there were 327million,210thoushand and 198 Americans in 2016 (I'm not sure precisely when this video clip was originally filmed or precisely when that 74% statistic was made from but my best guess is sometime near 2016) now 70% of that number is...over 230million humans. Assuming where Stephen got that number for was referring to specifically adults (which would've been thereabouts of 240-250 million total in the usa, and assuming that the 70% was referring to those adults) can you imagine such a number of people taking the time to say "I believe that angels literally are real"? Of course not.
It's far more probable that either a poll of, at most a few thousand people online or in person or through physical mail answered the question of "do you believe angels are real?" and the percentage of that thousand was 74% and they projected that percentage onto the hundreds of millions of Americans. The odds are that most people were they to find such a poll online or on the street or through the letterbox, simply wouldn't have answered at all and they deliberately discounted that lack of answer in their polls.
Added to which, how do we know that said statistics haven't been falsified?
Furrthermore: if you cherry pick your audiences, for example going to a church and asking people in person "do you believe that angels are real?" then obviously you're going to get a larger percentage of people saying "yes", especially if they did so without being aware that they were being taken literally or as part of a poll.
Plus, we don't know if those people who took part in the poll were being honest or were lying for some reason or many.
So yeah, statistics can be misleading in many ways.
This is the difference between Snow White and the Evil Queen: the Evil Queen shuts herself off from the rest of the world and instead of formulating her own views and venturing out into the world to find reality for herself, she goes "mirror mirror on the wall tell me all" and takes said mirror at it's word and at face value and of course becomes shallow and petty, whereas snow white goes out into the world and experiences the world of ordinary strangers, takes the truth straight from the horse's mouth and grows into her own person.
Over simpliefed statistics are the mirror mirror on the wall which can make us clever but not smart, and the real world is the multi-personality dwarves that we have to get used to and learn to navigate by ourselves if we are to get smart.
He missed saudi arabia, brunei, the uae…
These aren't the monarchies he's talking about, those are absolute monarchies. I think you're missing Russia, Hungary, Serbia, Turkey, China, Pakistan, and all the other host of non-monarchical governments that perform awfully in freedom indexes. 6 of the 10 freest countries are constitutional monarchies and 9 of the top 20. and of the worst 20, only 1 is a monarchy. His point, which you seem to have missed, is that being a monarchy doesn't affect a country's ability to be free, both monarchical and non-monarchical systems of government can be free, or can be despotic.
@@gammamaster1894 no, it’s cherry-picking, if you wish i can talk about thailand, bhutan, jordan or iran.
@@leovolpe934 You're the one cherry picking. If you want to talk about Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the UAE, Thailand, Bhutan, and Jordan (Iran is not a monarchy and hasn't been since 1979), then you also need to talk about Norway, Sweden, Denmark, The UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, The Netherlands, Belgium, Japan and so forth. Again, the point is that the existence of a monarchy does not make a country any less free than a republic.
@@gammamaster1894 Iran is not a monarchy because of an authoritarian coup driven by the monarchy to get in charge (coup sponsored by uk & usa) wich than caused a revolution, if it were not for the monarchy there is a fat chance that Iran today would be, if not a democracy at least a much freer and more liberal state than it is now.
And yes, Fry is cherry-picking because he bases his thesis only on cases in wich the monarchy either chose or was forced to step down from a position of power and authority, without considering all the other occasions in wich things went the opposite way.
@@gammamaster1894 no, his point is that the institution of monarchy is helpful/ improve the chances of a country to be free, wealthy and democratic.
He missed out Saudi Arabia and some other Arab countries. Also, in the UK the police are arresting people for holding up signs that say "He is not my King".
Saudi Arabia is a constitutional monarchy? News to us mate
@@chrislyne377 honestly
Saudi Arabia isn’t a constitutional monarchy
So I will say back to you, in North Korea you go into concentration camps when you criticise the government!
@@chrislyne377 Why not address the point? People were pre-emptively arrested at the coronation. Is that okay?
@@Fordnanlike the way the Homeless are arrested in DC before the president being sworn in?
Post hoc ergo procter hoc?
Amazed by some of the commenters who have misunderstood his argument. He makes his point clearly at 0:44 - 0:51 that having a monarchy doesn't stop you from being free. Denmark, Sweden etc prove this. Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the UAE don't disprove this point at all.
Great Clip. Also, had to subscribe, because you had 419 subscribers, and I just can't not be the one to make it 420. :)
I’m going to make it 450 :)
Enjoy
I thought Stephen Fry was supposed to be intelligent. This is a bizarre obfuscation of the facts by using some vague concept of "social justice" when clearly a monarch is exactly the opposite of social justice, it's inherently social privilege and cannot be anything other, no matter what social conditions are more broadly.
Social Justice isnt a 'vague concept'. If its equality you are after - the only truely equal society in the world is North Korea - where everyone has nothing. The true goal of the socialists.
@@AndyDrudy socialism literally means the workers controling the means of production it doesn't just mean equality, it means no longer having the ownership class lazing around doing nothing while they make obscene amounts of money off our work, but it has fuck all to do with social justice. Socialism is economic justice not social justice. Social justice is a vague concept because it's almost impossible to come to an exact definition of it, let alone knowing how to measure it. Social Justice is different from equality you can tell because they are two entirely different terms.
Who’s obfuscating, exactly? You’re reducing the concept of social justice to a single person or family in power, while simultaneously dismissing the concept as vague. Not only does this not work as a logical argument, it begs the question as to what your priorities are, if the freedom, equality and prosperity of society are considered peripheral to the inherited status of one head of state.
@@Ludd439 Dude. They are the one bringing in the capital, bearing risks and shit. Be an successful entrepreneur and come back rather than sitting at home and doing absolutely nothing. What a wasted sperm
He 's wright.
I agree with him and I am proud to have a monarchy in this small country of England.
Why? They're not proud of you. Bootlicker.
You can keep them.
how you miss the point. and yeah, keep your monarchy away from me
Good monarchies are great.
From Norway, long live the King!
@@practice4089 And keep your appalling grammar away from me.
Let's see Fry apply the same logic to his other little passions. "Some of the most peaceful and successful nations have Christianity at the heart of their government. It may be silly, but it just works! Empiricism tells us a state religion is something to embrace!"
Utterly stupid take. eSwatini, a brutally repressive state, has a King. Brunei, an absolute monarchy, has a King. Bahrain has a monarchy. Vatican City is a monarchy. Stephen Fry has unfortunately done some great cherry picking in his arguments.
CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy. None of those you mentioned are that. There wasn't any cherry picking
Fry cherry picked monarchies which fit his idea.
Constitutional Monarchy.
The fact that Fry didn’t list every single candidate country is not an example of cherry-picking. You’d be hard-pressed to find a constitutional monarchy which didn’t pass the empirical tests that he laid out.
Why isn't separation of church and state a good thing Mr Fry? Separating church and state means not allowing the church to posses a coercive monopoly to enforce their religion on others by using violence.....
Look at what happened before the separation of church and state, Religious wars were everywhere.
Was wondering why he has this view as well 🤔
I think you missed the point, he was saying its beautifully absurd that empirically speaking the UK is more secular even though we have less separation of church and state
@@jakemercer1528 Not just less: NONE! Our head of state is expressly defined at the highest religious authority. He is the head of the Church of England. It's like if the US president had to lead the Mormons
Or, it could be religious views in England aren't as political as in other countries. Wasn't there a PM who tried and hide his religious views?
Clearly Mr Fry is showing a great example of cognitive bias and equivocation fallacy here, the examples that contradict this preposterous claim are manifold. While he is sat there the nearest foreign country to him (France) observes the principle of laïcité. The absolute separation of church from state, their welfare and health system (ranked #1 by the WHO) is a huge part of social justice.
A quick google search of countries with monarchs makes his assertion not look just biased but borderline idiotic.
He very clearly states the having a Monarchy does not mean you must have a monarch to have greater levels of soial justice etc etc. Perhaps you didn't hear that bit
@@AndyDrudy he said "countries that have kings and queens which are rationally stupid weird ideas are empirically freer and more socially just than countries that don't."
Plainly absurd. Should we really compare Morocco, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain Cambodia and Thailand with Germany, Finland, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand and Canada?
@Moonraker Hosting and supporting the descendants of incestuous parasites is very different from putting up with them as a 'figurehead'.
Unfortunately NZ, AU and Canada have parasites modeled in the same style that they like to lean on, very effective amongst the demographic that doesn't even remotely understand it's history.
@@sjbechet1111 He was referring to CONSTITUTIONAL monarchies. You spit feathers with your republicanism because you are void of any and all culture. That will always lose you the argument.
@@manmaje3596 Try again without the Ad hominem - play the ball not the player.
A bit of a strange closing statement. If you believe in the existence of God, there’s no reason why you wouldn’t also believe in the existence of angels.
Not really I don't believe in God but the origin of the universe is fundamentally mysterious whereas Angels that walk on this earth provably do not exist.
@@steadyeddie9318 What an utterly garbled and confused response that doesn’t address my point in the slightest.
@@superman00001 I'm saying that whilst both have no evidence for their existence, the possibility of God is more believable than Angels, so its understandable that some people believe one and not the other.
@@steadyeddie9318 Being incredulous that some people believe in both God AND angels is a bit like being incredulous that some people believe in both apple trees AND apples.
@@superman00001 Depends what kind of God, if you believe in a non interventionalist type then Angels probably seem ridiculous.
Based
Saudi, Qatar, Japan, etc. poorest record on earth.. love Stephen Fry but this argument of his is total B/S
His argument is focused on constitutional monarchies and comparisons with similar countries though so it still stands. Also Japan is quite democratic, the democracy index often lists them in the top 20
Saudi and Qatar are run by Sharia Law not a true Constitutional Monarchy and the Emperor of Japan is doing alright tbh 👍
I find it odd that in order to make their monarchy sound better, along with the enmeshment of church and state, that he had to bash the USA in the process . Fry is a monarchist and England just loves their class system.
The US system seems to be bashing itself you have far more homelessness, incarceration, inequality and lack of free healthcare than anywhere in the developed world.
He laughs at the idea of angels of God but he has no problem embracing Angels of hell
Canadian here. I’m all in favour of the elected leader being responsible to the executive monarch, who has no real power. Somehow, it works.
That would be great. Except for the fact the monarch retains significant power.
@@Fordnan - Meh. In spite of Canada being a “Constitutional Monarchy”, the monarch, and their Canadian representatives (Governor-General and Lieutenant-Governors) hold no legislative, judicial, or executive power. Beyond those of pageant, ritual and ceremony.
@@johnspooner1403 That's what they say here in Britain, too. And yet they have the power to vet and veto debate in the house of commons, vet and amend legislation before it enters parliament, refuse assent to legislation passed by parliament, assent to legislation voted down by parliament, and to ultimately prorogue parliament. It's how the establishment shorted our democracy and 'got brexit done' without the necessary due process being carried out by parliament.
I rather suspect you're kept in the dark about the powers the monarchy hands your establishment, too.
@@Fordnan Simply, no. Britain, yes. But Canada is not part of GB. It isn’t even a colony anymore. It is a “Commonwealth Realm”, and since the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 patriated the British North America Act, 1867 to Canada , thus ending any Canadian dependence on the Parliament of Westminster and further defined our complete independence. So, figurehead.
@@johnspooner1403 I don't know the details of what power the monarch retains in Canada. I know you are in the minority in Canada, and according to some polls you would be even here. Canada's abolition of the monarchy will be an important first step in ending it across the 'commonwealth', including here, so good luck to your compatriots. You're always free to retain an unelected hereditary head of state if you choose to do so democratically, and get consent every generation.
100% wrong! 🤬🤬🤬
Why?
Stephen fry what a just a pawn in the catholic machine
Lol what? Guess you haven’t seen him destroy the Catholic Church in his Intelligence Squared debate alongside Christopher Hitchens
He's an atheist
@@sygulli5093 ,
He's a Jew
@@mississippirougarou He comes from a jewish family, but he's very much an atheist, and has been in multiple debates against religious people where he's spoken about atheism.
@@TykusBalrog ,
He's a Jew by blood. His "religion" hardly matters.