Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 March 22

= March 22 =

Cost of supporting the Monarchy in Canada
Canada is part of a Constitutional Monarchy. As such, at the Federal level there is a Governor General while the Provinces and Territories have Lieutenent Governors (or Territorial equivalents). Is there any way of determining what the monetary cost is to support these representatives of the Monarchy? In other words, how much does Canada pay to have these representatives of QEII?

99.250.103.117 (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sources seem to agree that it's about $50 million (Canadian) per year, or $1.53 per person. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

WOW! Imagine what we could do with that money if it were put back into our economy instead of supporting some antiquated political/philosophical paradigm. . . Thanks.

99.250.103.117 (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * To put that into perspective, if you took all of that $50 million dollars per year, and instead figured out how much extra the Canadian government could do with it, it amounts to an extra hour and 45 minutes worth of work (considering the proportion of the Canadian government spending this accounts for). That is, over 365 days, there's an extra hour and 45 minutes you could so something with.  It's not that much money.  -- Jayron  32  00:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Imagine if this thread was not simply for the purpose of soapboxing. Wouldn't that be something.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that you would need to pay for a replacement. If Canada decided that it wanted to become a Parliamentary republic, then it's hard to think of a country following that system that doesn't feel the need to employ a ceremonial president (I believe that South Africa, Botswana and the Marshall Islands are the exceptions). If that is the case, the new president would probably need all the official residences, posh cars and travel expenses that are currently enjoyed by your Governor-General. The President of Germany, for example, a nice chap who had a distinguished career as a not very successful politician and has no more power than Canada's G-G, has the use of seven palaces. You do need somebody to entertain visiting heads of state and give them dinner in reasonable surroundings, to visit factories and homeless shelters telling everybody how well they're doing and all that stuff. Alansplodge (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I never bought this argument. I think governments arrange to have ceremonial presidents because they can, not because they're actually good for anything.  As others have pointed out, it isn't really all that much money; that's true.  But personally I would like to see more countries dispense with ceremonial heads of state, not so much to save money, as to give a poke in the eye to statism itself. --Trovatore (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But according to sources such as this the German President costs the German taxpayers EUR 4.6mio/year. This is a with more than twice the population of Canada. $50 mio does seem pretty expensive. 86.136.42.134 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if we're comparing like for like there. According to the first webpage linked by Cucumber Mike above, most of the $50m was spent on maintaining historic properties and operating the Canadian honours system. Whether the German presidential total includes the equivalent fees, or if they are charged to other budgets, I don't know. Alansplodge (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also bear in mind that Canada's total government spending in 2009 was CAD 238,800 million - so CAD 50 million represents 0.02% of the total annual budget. Alansplodge (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You can have Joe Biden. Biden's One-Night Paris Hotel Tab: $585,000.50 $459,388.65 Hotel Bill in London — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 18:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder where the money goes. Does the GoG have money shredder where he turns good Canadian dollars into paper goo? Or does he maybe spend most of that money in Canada, thus "putting it back into the Canadian economy"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Minor point but the three territories don't have the equivalent of the Lieutenent Governors we have Commissioners who are not vice-regal representatives, see Commissioner. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

can Canada declare itself COMPLETELY independent of UK. What would happen. Would UK send in the army to take it back like that one time with the Falkland islands?--There goes the internet (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC) That is so far from what actually happened I can't stop laughing. Hotclaws (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Canada is completely independent of the UK, at least since the Canada Act 1982. It just happens to share the head of state with the UK. It also shares the head of state with Tuvalu, but that does not make Canada a Tuvaluan colony. Should Canada decide to eliminate the monarchy, my guess is that the UK will say "too sad, but good riddance", as in several other cases, like India or Botswana. On the other hand, should Canada decide to eliminate the Monarch, there would be all kinds of trouble... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How could an entire country commit a murder? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  09:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * They call it just war. Usually it's mass-murder, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm certain that if Canada was ever invaded by the army of a fascist military dictatorship, as happened to the Falkland Islands, then the UK would be ready to help Canadians to get their country back. Alansplodge (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You make it very hard to avoid the obvious association ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Canada could leave the Commonwealth, and it could declare itself a Republic and end its association with the British Monarchy. This has happened in the past: Ireland, Zimbabwe and South Africa come to mind. The UK didn't go to war with those nations then, and I doubt it would if it happened again. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Membership of the Commonwealth hasn't been limited to Commonwealth realms since the London Declaration of 1949. Ireland did indeed leave the Commonwealth in 1949, but South Africa was prevented from renewing her membership in 1961 (on the grounds of Apartheid in South Africa rather than republicanism) but rejoined in 1994 and is still an active member. Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 for human rights abuses and then terminated her own membership in 2003. Not much similarity with Canada thankfully. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, all Commonwealth realms are members of the Commonwealth, but not all members of the Commonwealth are Commonwealth realms. Australia last seriously considered the subject of becoming a republic in 1999, but we would have remained a member of the Commonwealth whatever the outcome.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bhutan vs Switzerland
I noted many point of similarity between the countries of Bhutan and Switzerland. Inspite of all these similarities Switzerland is a globalized country with cities such as Zurich and Geneva and has a very high infrastructure and economy. But Bhutan on the other hand is a very improverished country. What is the reason behind that. Solomon7968 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Both are mountainous Countries
 * Both are Landlocked Countries
 * Both are peaceful countries
 * Location, location, location? Switzerland is in the middle of Europe, and is on the frequently-used overland route across the Alps. It's amidst the economic superpowers of Italy, France, and Germany, and can partake of trade with and between them. Bhutan, on the other hand, is between India and China, but only the distal provinces of such. Aside from an ancient spur of the silk road, there are really no major trade routes through Bhutan. It should also be pointed out that up until recently Switzerland was a relatively impoverished and agrarian (by the standards of Europe), and it was only recently due to industrialization and the growth of the financial sector that it became the rich country we see it as today. (See, for example When Did the Swiss Get so Rich?). -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Can then it is possible that Bhutan will also be as rich as Switzerland in the future. But set aside economy Switzerland has global schools such as the International School of Geneva. Why does not Bhutan has got any good schools when there are equally good schools such as the Doon School in the Uttarakhand state of India. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This is really the same question as asking why the West is more developed than the rest of the world. The most immediate reason is that the West developed a superior form of government, a superior economic system, a superior system of morality, a superior method of investigating the natural world, and a superior method of investigating the human world.  Asking why the West managed to do this whereas everyone else failed is a more interesting question, and one that I don't know the answer to.  --140.180.249.152 (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Best answer ever! μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note of correction, capitalism does not exist anywhere in the world. --PlanetEditor (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant to add in the welfare state, but figured I already included too many links. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The "superiority" of western culture is debatable. Westerners, like any other cultural group, are liable to ethnocentrism on this question. It is certainly true that, until recently, the West outperformed other parts of the word on volumetric measurements of the economy, such as gross domestic product.  That has been changing in recent years, as some countries with very different value systems, such as China, have been far outstripping the West in their rate of economic growth. Current global challenges, such as global warming and resource depletion, raise serious questions about whether a culture and a political economy that seeks infinite exponential growth is really superior, in the long term, to one that aims for a sustainable steady state economy. Bhutan has adopted a policy of renouncing economic growth at all costs with its national benchmark of gross national happiness.  Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is the general question of economic development in Europe, but there is also the specific question of the Swiss economy. I wish that Watch Valley had more detail. The Swiss valleys have industrialised over a long period, and they have been able to update to high-tech engineering. However, much of Switzerland was dirt-poor until the tourists started coming for skiing.


 * If I wanted to set up a new watch factory, and I really don't because it would be unlikely to succeed wherever it was, I would choose Switzerland over Bhutan, even though the wage bill would be sky-high in Switzerland and rock-bottom in Bhutan. Switzerland has the skilled labour, the services to business (banks, accountants, insurance companies, consultants), and much better transport to get the raw materials in at low cost and the finished product out to markets. The markets would be much nearer, and customers would have more confidence in a product made in Switzerland. Suzhou might be an even more attractive location, though. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The superiority of western culture is "debatable" only to people who have never lived without it. Try telling a North Korean refugee about the environmental dangers of capitalism, and she would probably laugh in your face while asking if you'd rather starve to death.  Contrary to what you claim, China has had rapid economic growth only since the capitalist Chinese economic reform, when it essentially renounced communism (another Western idea).  Chinese youth are increasingly adopting a Western lifestyle.  Most Chinese also recognize the need to liberalize the government by introducing democratic reforms and decreasing corruption.
 * P.S. I am not an ethnic Westerner. Also, the OP asked why Switzerland was wealthier, not whether being wealthy is morally good. --140.180.249.152 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The superiority of western culture (liberal culture) lies on its value of individualism, that is the main point. Third world or developing countries are largely collectivists (religious collectivist, blind nationalists, ethno-nationalists, economic collectivists or socialists etc.). Western culture generally put much value to the individual, to civil liberties, and human rights, and this value is largely absent in African and South Asian countries.


 * However I will like to point out that it is completely wrong to claim "western culture" as the only culture that put value to individual rights. Countries that highly regard individual rights include South Korea, Japan, Thailand, Hong Kong, Estonia, Czech Republic, Australia, New Zealand etc. So I think it is very logical to replace the term "western culture" with "liberal culture".


 * Also, Western Europe is far more superior to the United States. Western Europe has far greater human rights record compared to the United States. For example, death penalty is abolished in the Western Europe, while the US is one of the biggest implementer of death penalty (greater than North Korea), number of atheists are higher in Western European countries while the US is the most religious western country etc. etc. --PlanetEditor (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to assume you're being sarcastic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The West Europe and US comparison? No. It is a fact that countries such as Netherlands, Germany etc. have far greater civil liberties record than the US (in terms of abolition of death penalty, sexual freedom etc). --PlanetEditor (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, Germany, the nation that gassed and burned 6 million Jews. A fine civil liberties record, yessiree. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Logical fallacy. A funny-moustached crazy person's crimes have nothing to do with present-day Germany. --PlanetEditor (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Logical fallacy: That assumption that atheism, libertine lifestyles, and the rejection of the right of self-defense are hallmarks of a "superior" society. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Atheism is the proof of higher cognitive ability. State-sponsored and carefully arranged murder of a defenseless person is not "right of self-defense". --PlanetEditor (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In my observations, I would have to say that atheism is proof of nothing except extreme narrow-mindedness. And the legal permanent removal of a murderer is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Atheism is the proof of higher cognitive ability - most absurd statement I've read in years. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  09:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Religiosity and intelligence. --PlanetEditor (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those prove nothing. Your statement is still absurd.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  18:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't want to extend this debate, but I want to point out that your interpretation of "Western" is very different from that of most people. Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand are usually considered integral parts of the Western world.  Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997.  Japan became a world power after it started Westernizing due to the Black Ships incident.  Almost all the countries you listed are politically, economically, socially, and scientifically Western, and that's only because I don't know enough about the rest to make a judgment.  --140.180.249.152 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the superiority tangent, which was mainly in response to 140.180... I would point out that North Korea's military command economy and western (oligarchic) capitalism are not the only conceivable ways of organizing economies, and sustainability has to be a criterion in assessing the superiority of the western model relative to other models, such as a steady-state economy. However, 140.180 is absolutely correct that the original question was about why Switzerland is wealthier than Bhutan.  As others have pointed out, Switzerland's location in Europe is the key.  Western Europe during the early modern period had a historically somewhat unique situation of interstate competition for military superiority coupled with an alliance between autocratic states and a technologically innovative mercantile middle class.  It was in the context of this alliance that the Enlightenment occurred.  States found that technological innovation promoted both military superiority and the prosperity of their middle classes, and so European states promoted scientific and technological advancement in a way states in no other region had done before. Switzerland benefited from and participated in this process, which included the development of a wealth-creating infrastructure of railways, electrical grids, sewers, and later highways and airports. Europe's transport infrastructure, whose Alpine heart is Switzerland, promotes trade and in turn wealth. During the 20th century, Switzerland benefited relative to other European countries from its policy of neutrality, which allowed it to trade with all warring parties when trade had shut down between them and which made Switzerland a safe haven.  This particularly benefited its financial sector.  Bhutan's neighborhood largely lacks this wealth-generating infrastructure and culture of technology. India has relatively new, budding technology sector, but its centers are far geographically and culturally from Bhutan.  While India has a basic railway network, it is nowhere near as dense as Europe's, nor does it extend across the Himalaya.  Finally, the Himalaya is a much more formidable barrier than the Alps.  Whereas Switzerland's Alpine valleys and the passes between its relatively low mountains tie north and south Europe together, Bhutan and Tibet are separated by the towering wall of the Himalaya, whose lowest passes are higher than many of Switzerland's highest peaks.  Travel through these mountains is not feasible because of altitude sickness, snow and ice, and other obstacles.  Because the mountain chain is so wide, tunneling through them would be extremely expensive. Finally, Tibet itself is underdeveloped. Marco polo (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * By the 13th century Tuscany and the Low Countries both had textile industries. Trade routes took raw materials and finished products out; any land route into Italy has to cross the Alps. Therefore Switzerland was on or near the cross European trade routes. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

[unindent] Solomon — one scholarly answer to your original question can be found in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I'd advise you to read the article (and the book, if you have time), but of course you need to remember that the author's attracted substantial opposition as well as support. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it true that the Goebbels were machine-gunned to death at their own request?
I read that on their articles. 186.130.73.11 (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I scanned the article on Joseph Goebbels and did not see anything that said they were "machine-gunned to death". Is there a separate article you are referring to? Ryan Vesey 19:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While there are differing accounts, machine-guns are not mentioned in Joseph Goebbels. Astronaut (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It was in Magda Goebbels#Suicide. No reference was given, and so I have removed the statement. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This story seems more factual: 'Unwilling to accept a world without National Socialism, Magda Goebbels poisons her six children while her husband waits. Then Goebbels and Magda proceed up to the Chancellery garden, where Goebbels shoots his wife before shooting himself.' See Downfall_(film). --Omidinist (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

see user:186.130.74.219 and its various socks and obsession with nazis

Is necrophilia banned in the U.S.?
186.130.73.11 (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See Necrophilia for the individual state laws against it. Tevildo (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "...I recall a heartwarming story he wrote about a young necrophiliac who eventually achieved his lifelong ambition by becoming coroner. [crowd murmurs] The rest of you can look it up when you get home!" -- An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

see the banned User:186.130.74.219 with his typical questions about Nazis, sexual perversion, and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Madoc and his Welsh people
According to our article on Madoc After gathering ten ships of men and women the prince sailed west a second time, never to return. Based on the time period (1171 AD), approximately how many people on average would each of these ships carry?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From a quick look at Google, it seems that the main type of ship used around the British Isles in the 12th century would have been a knarr. The bigger cog (ship) was still confined to the northern coasts of the continent at that time. Some information on this page. Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Great information. How many people would an average cog ship hold in this time period?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Google couldn't couldn't find me a number, but the model shown suggests to me that 20 would be quite enough. Alansplodge (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * O.K., thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The crew of a typical Iceland knarr was 15-30 people. But knarrs could apparently carry up to 40 tons (estimated for the Hedeby I find), and Olaf II of Norway allegedly took 260 armed men in just two knarrs from England to Norway (which sounds crowded, but not incompatible with the capacity). However, that seems implausible for an alleged transatlantic crossing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)