Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 109 posts

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

#61

Post by exasperaited »

KaiserPro wrote: post #47
rootusrootus wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I always tell people I don't actually want to risk an elected presidency until Jeremy Clarkson is too old to run for it.

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

#62

Post by guelo »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #44
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.

No, billionaires should not be the countervailing power, that just turns into oligarchy. The innovation of America is that We the people, our laws and institutions are. The problem is ideological billionaires have been buying up all the propaganda outlets hobling "we the people"'s power.

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

#63

Post by exasperaited »

aurareturn wrote: post #13
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.

They project soft power and attract tourists. I would bet that they’re actually a positive on UK’s economy and well being.

They also knocked 15-20 percentage points off our Trump tariffs because he's so easily played; he barely even left the castle grounds this time.

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

#64

Post by simpaticoder »

guelo wrote: post #57
simpaticoder wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good comment. There is a trade-off between principle and loyalty, and "rule of law" puts the dial hard over to "principle". The mechanism behind its success is that it puts a society solidly into the "cooperate" Nash equilibrium. (Loyalty, by contrast, puts a society solidly into the "defect" equilibrium). I suspect that Christianity, taken broadly, also pushes the dial hard over to "principle". First, it "undermines…

Only Christianity? none of the other religions? It's funny pushing religion on a Thomas Payne post since he rejected religion as corrupt and irrational.

The experiment has only been run once, and it was mostly a white, Christian project. Payne's personal values doesn't change the facts of the experiment. If we could go back in time and witness the invention of the Enlightenment, political Liberalism, and Industrialization for other (race, religion) pairs, I'd love to do it. Maybe we can, as a proxy, look across the world at how different (race, religion) pairs have adopted liberal values to see if there are any patterns.

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

#65

Post by hax0ron3 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #30

Thomas Paine is one strand of an ideological opposition to authoritarianism that doesn't devolve into lunacy (unlike modern "libertarianism", communism, etc). He was a good man in a time of bad men. One of the few founding fathers who was genuinely against slavery and supported real egalitarianism to the point of being ostracized for it. He was an honest to god liberal with a capital L, and he, unlike Thomas Jefferso…

I question Thomas Paine's liberal cred given that he supported confiscation of Loyalists' properties.

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

#66

Post by Ray20 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #30

Thomas Paine is one strand of an ideological opposition to authoritarianism that doesn't devolve into lunacy (unlike modern "libertarianism", communism, etc). He was a good man in a time of bad men. One of the few founding fathers who was genuinely against slavery and supported real egalitarianism to the point of being ostracized for it. He was an honest to god liberal with a capital L, and he, unlike Thomas Jefferso…

> He believed in a universal basic income (Agrarian Justice)

I am, of course, only superficially familiar with his works, but calling what Paine proposed a basic income is extremely stupid.

This is a trivial concept of viewing territories as a natural resource, specifically, land, not productive assets in general. With the logic that land is not a product of human activity, and therefore, by acquiring land as "ownership", a person obtains it at the expense of everyone else, and it's logical to force them to compensate for this.

And it certainly can't be called a basic income if you look at the proposed tax burden. It's simply another form of tax redistribution, and in almost every respect, more capitalist compared to the tax distribution systems of that time, (and certainly of today).

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

#68

Post by permo-w »

KaiserPro wrote: post #49
BrenBarn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

see any national park?

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

#69

Post by devilbunny »

rwmj wrote: post #48
Lio wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

American and curious: why do you think William is a fail? Because Charles looked that way to us.

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

#70

Post by ekaryotic »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #44
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.

there are physical laws that cannot be broken, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. therefore attempting to restrain a higher power only ends in self restraint. have you considered that the best approach is to go on strike, depriving the higher power of something of yours, whether that be labour, or progeny.
Post reply on HN