In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical • Hacker News Board

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#41

Post by BrenBarn » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:34 PM UTC

redwall_hp wrote: post #33

izzydata wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well. It's far outlived any purpose it may have had. Even without them actually participating in government they are basically just celebrities living off the social welfare of the people.

It's the other way around: they're wealthy holders of land, like the rest of the dukes and such, who control large chunks of the land in the UK and own large businesses. The UK benefits from the royal family allowing the use of their land, including historic buildings, at a relatively low cost. Another example: the Duke of Westminster is worth $12B and owns a large chunk of London outright, including a ton of large,…

> The UK benefits from the royal family allowing the use of their land, including historic buildings, at a relatively low cost.

How does the UK benefit from the royal family allowing this, rather than just having a non-monarchist government that does the same thing?

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#42

Post by BrenBarn » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:36 PM UTC

rectang wrote: post #31

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That'd be a vaguely interesting point, if I—searching my heart—I could find any evidence of this going both way. Congress has never folded power to a president like this before. The Supreme Court has never faced such backlash from district courts ( https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/11/us/politics/judicial-cris... ). Scientists & researchers have never been up in arms about us health policy or what is being done. Colleg…

To cite one example: aggressive gerrymandering has required a response in the form of California Prop 50. I'm hoping that we can all find our way to competitive districts together, rather than permanently sorting into districts that are the province of one party or another, eliminating free elections in practice. But thanks to SCOTUS interpreting any amount of political gerrymandering as permissible, we may have in f…

I think there are multiple irreparable holes in the US Constitution. That doesn't mean tyranny is inevitable, though, it just means we need to start fresh (which is what they did when they came up with the Constitution anyway).

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#43

Post by BrenBarn » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:37 PM UTC

Yoric wrote: post #16

readthenotes1 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you get a Nobel prize for proving Benjamin Franklin right (who was rephrasing a more ancient saying). Charlie Munger recalled it in 2003 as “Where there is no bread, there is no law; where there is no law, there is no bread.” It's going to be some easy picking if more figure that out ...

Now remember that there's an entire current in Silicon Valley that advocates against rule of law, at least when applied to them. Oh, and a felon taking some liberties with law sitting at the White House. Yeah, I think reminding people that you don't get prosperity without rule of law is a good idea.

Not a good enough idea, apparently, given that what you said in the first paragraph is happening.

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#44

Post by MichaelZuo » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:37 PM UTC

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #37

It’s not just “kings,” its concentration of power in all spheres of life. The fact that this point is largely lost on the audience of this site just shows how bad things have gotten. People who want to amass power for its own sake need self-reinforcing systems that restrain them.

This seems circular.

It’s impossible to successfully restrain another more powerful than you, by definition, as an individual.

And to do so as a group introduces the whole mess of politiking and intra-group dynamics that generates any significant power concentration in the first place.

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#45

Post by bix6 » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:38 PM UTC

ecocentrik wrote: post #17

olooney wrote: post #4

Paine kind of hit the nail on the head with this one: > "The law is king!" The 2024 Nobel prize in economics[1] was awarded to a team of three who investigated what causes a nation to prosper and identified "rule of law" as an essential ingredient[2]. [1]: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2024/pre... [2]: https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-economists-daron-acemoglu-simo...

Nice slogan but right now in America, money is king and the law is bent to accommodate the wills of rich lawless men.

They aren’t bending the law, they’re outright breaking it. The question is whether we’ll demand enforcement or not. So far there has not been sufficient outrage to demand true enforcement.

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#46

Post by gigatree » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:39 PM UTC

mattgreenrocks wrote: post #37

It’s not just “kings,” its concentration of power in all spheres of life. The fact that this point is largely lost on the audience of this site just shows how bad things have gotten. People who want to amass power for its own sake need self-reinforcing systems that restrain them.

And ironically, the founding fathers did exactly that. The colonies were only started having land stolen and having their property and work taxed shortly after the formation of the federal government.

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#47

Post by KaiserPro » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:40 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #38

izzydata wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well. It's far outlived any purpose it may have had. Even without them actually participating in government they are basically just celebrities living off the social welfare of the people.

The older I get the more I appreciate the value of a shared mythology. In some cases that is religion. Or a creed, as it was for a long time in America. But I think it is very valuable to have it for a healthy functioning society. It feels like we have lost it in America, which does not make me optimistic for the future. I wonder if the monarchy serves that role for the UK. Might be better to keep it.

I was a fairly ardent anti-monarchist. The problem is, I had put my faith in politicians to unite the UK. The problem is, there isn't much mileage in uniting the UK at the moment, or competence in government.

The only real way that the monarchy can survive is if the kingdom stays united.

Also, president boris, stamer or farage is just a humiliation I can't really cope with.

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#48

Post by rwmj » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:40 PM UTC

Lio wrote: post #24

izzydata wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't mind seeing the British monarchy get abolished as well. It's far outlived any purpose it may have had. Even without them actually participating in government they are basically just celebrities living off the social welfare of the people.

Are you British? Personally, I like having a figurehead head of state that is subject to a directly elected Parliament. The King may have cerimonital power but he can never exercise it. As was proved in the Glorious Revolution we can remove our head of state anytime we like. I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended.

I am British. I think QE2 made a good job out of this cursed tradition. Charles is a crank, but a crank that I happen to agree with, so fine. But I suspect things are going to go off the rails with his failson William.

> I would much rather see the House of Lords reformed than the monarchy ended.

I'd be very careful about that one. Making it elected would be a terrible idea. There are some reforms that are possible, but they'd need to be very narrow (for example, limiting the size, and limiting tenure).

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#49

Post by KaiserPro » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:41 PM UTC

BrenBarn wrote: post #41

redwall_hp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the other way around: they're wealthy holders of land, like the rest of the dukes and such, who control large chunks of the land in the UK and own large businesses. The UK benefits from the royal family allowing the use of their land, including historic buildings, at a relatively low cost. Another example: the Duke of Westminster is worth $12B and owns a large chunk of London outright, including a ton of large,…

> The UK benefits from the royal family allowing the use of their land, including historic buildings, at a relatively low cost. How does the UK benefit from the royal family allowing this, rather than just having a non-monarchist government that does the same thing?

Because it would have been sold off by a previous government. (see virtually every other money making asset.)

Re: In 1776, Thomas Paine made the best case for fighting kings −and being skeptical

#50

Post by Barrin92 » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 6:42 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #32

vunderba wrote: post #11

> Paine labels kingship "the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry" Given that this kind of deference to a perceived authority (which manifests in hero worship, tribalism, influencers, religion, celebrity veneration, sports figures, etc) seems to be built into the very genetic fabric of 99% of the general populace I despair at ever seeing it end. People simply can't wait t…

> People simply can't wait to anoint their own personal king You really think there are only 1% of us that have no desire at all for any sort of king? I cannot think of a single person deserving of that role, cannot imagine what it would take for me to change my mind. I very much value our systems of government, and I do not ever want any one person to have too much control over them.

I don't think it's necessary to take the OP literally, but directionally it's correct. Looking at American society, the Trumps, Kardashians, Clintons, Roosevelts, Kennedys ... for a country that's so proudly republican, how many of their presidents and elites have been blood related? Might add Jesus to the list metaphorically

People Americans hoist into power (and many other countries do) often look like a poor man's replacement for a monarch. How many people in any country do actually lay claim to their own values and conscience? How many are genuinely emancipated and govern themselves?

In particular in this day and age where most of the wannabe kings are so obviously idiotic it's telling how eager people still are to subject themselves, sometimes in, as David Bentley Hart dubbed it crypto-erotic fashion, almost sadomasochistic and fully aware how incapable the demagogues are.