Whats With All The Anti Sovereignty Anti Constitution Anti Small Business Radical Socialists

Why is the right wing press in the UK so anti-EU?

Partly self interest, partly philosophy.Others have spoken of the self interest let me speak of the philosophy. Or perhaps I mean psychology.The two great motivators in political life are hope and fear. And the conservative (small c) mindset is based around fear. Fear of change, fear of the new, fear of losing what little you have.Now, sometimes fear is rational (I’m not the world’s bravest person myself) and sometimes the great hopes of the liberal (small l) philosophy are built upon optimism and moonshine. (Which is why we’ve evolved the ever circling war between hope and fear as a survival mechanism.) But without hope you descend into a spiral of ever tighter limitations on what is allowed or even contemplated in which little is attempted and even less is achieved.The reflex of the minds that are unbalanced towards conservatism is to retreat: to stick to the local, the known, the small scale. And the idea of the EU is just too new, too unfamiliar, too ambitious for the conservative mind set. So they talk about liberty and sovereignty and depict the EU as corrupt and ‘the other’ to cover up the basic impulse of running away because they are scared.(If you want to see what the mind overbalanced towards liberalism/progressivism looks like contemplate North Korea or the Socialist Workers Party: organisations that know no limit to their ambition and have no idea of what prudence may be.)Conservatives can support causes that by a world scale are incredibly radical as long as they have had time to get used to the idea. Look at Edmund Burke’s reactions to the French Revolution: he could support British parliamentary supremacy because it had been established more than a hundred years before in the Great Revolution of 1688 but felt the expansion of the electorate was a sin against the perfect job that had been done once and for all by his ancestors. Compare and contrast the feelings some American conservatives have towards the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.So the British conservatives would have gotten used to the idea of the EU eventually while continuing to rail against further, future changes. But just now they have decided to throw away prudence and jump into the abyss with nothing to drape the nation’s nakedness in but the flag and the World Trade Organisation. We are at a very odd moment in history.

What are the top differences between a Libertarian, Republican and Democrat?

In simple languageDemocrat- Big government, more spending, social liberalism, pro choice, gun control, marriage equality ( for the most part , they support this) , raising the minimum wage, big taxingRepublican - Small government, less spending, socially conservative, anti pro choice, anti gun control, oppose marriage equality ( for the most part, they oppose it),not raising the minimum wage, believe in tax cutsLibertarian- Small Government, less spending, socially liberal, government has NO business to tell you what to do with your body, Guns are individual rights ,Government should stay out of marriages, legalizing marijuana, non interventionist , anti wars, privatization of social security , allowing the free market to decide the minimum wage, think taxation is fraud.Libertarians are of the opinion that you have the right do whatever you want to, so long as you don’t hurt anyone or take someone else’s stuff along the way.Libertarians are actually classic Republicans. Most Libertarians 30 years ago would have been mainstream Republicans . The nutcases you see today are NOT Republicans in the real sense , but populist whackjobs. Gov Gary Johnson was a Republican governor of New Mexico, Bill Weld was a Republican Governor of MA. Ron Paul who ran for President as a Republican was a Libertarian Presidential nominee in 1988.Even in modern day. Libertarians agree with Republicans on 6 to 7 out of 10 issues. But the 3 issues they might disagree with are complete deal breakers and poles apart from each other ( Government policed personal lives, foreign policy, war on drugs).The founding fathers of USA were libertarians in the classic sense- Example Jefferson, Washington, Benjamin Franklin.Modern day- Ron Paul, Gary Johnson.Image Source : Google. All images are taken from Google.com. I own nothing.Source : YoutubeI am disabling the comments now.Far too many butthurt, oversensitive Americans from both parties who are showing the world why we are known to be loud, rude and just extremely opinionated in our views. And don't forget ignorant!

What are the arguments for pro or anti monarchy in Britain?

Generally in the UK, the most common arguments stack up like this:Pro:  The monarchy attracts tourists, who spend more money than it costs.The Queen is a non partisan head of state, who could act as a "brake" on the worst things an elected Government might try to do.  (The supporting theory - for this is that something like Nazi Germany could not have happened in Britain, because the monarch would have started to veto things).Every country needs a head of state.  If there wasn't a monarchy, there would need to be an elected head of state (e.g. a president).  Lots of people fear who the British public would elect as a president!Con:It costs a load of money to keep a monarchy - if not in terms of paying the royal family directly, or the upkeep of their houses (those are mostly self funded by the family), then certainly in terms of the cost of security for them etc.It is an anachronism to have an unelected (albeit just a figurehead like the German president, rather than an executive like the US president) head of state in the 21st century.  The monarchy is also tied to the Church of England, which is effectively the state religion - which is also anachronistic in a world where less than 10% of the population goes to church, and where most countries now have separation of church and state.Obviously some of the counterarguments are:Tourists would come anyway, there are plenty of other reasons to come to the UK.The British public would do just fine in electing an alternative head of state, thanks.The security costs for the royal family would instead be spent on the alternative head of state.It may be an anachronism, but it is what makes Britain different from most other countries.