71–80 of 109 posts
One funny fact about the “No Kings” protests held abroad is that they were called “No Tyants” so as to not be interpreted as anti-monarchist.
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.
When you consider how many people and how much wealth was destroyed during/following revolutions like the French or Russian, and the compound interest of that wealth over 150 years, the pennies we pay to the royals todays is probably cheap.
Just saying, if you went back in time and opted for a revolution instead of a constitutional monarchy, you'd probably be poorer today -- compound growth over 150 years is no joke.
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.
The British royal family does get some bad press from time to time, but the recent string of British PMs really does serve to remind us all that the bar is really low :)
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...
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…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point the British royals are basically tourist attractions. They probably generate more revenue than they consume.
I intended to object, but apparently the royals cost the government ~500MM GBP/year. Which is a lot, but less than 5% of their tourism industry, so it seems possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Amending the Constitution to fix such holes is impractical when it would require the approval of states whose hold on perpetual minority rule would be threatened. So then we're looking at a constitutional convention. Can you imagine our current crop of politicians cooperating to negotiate something which improves on the current Constitution? I'd expect a prisoner's dilemma with a defect-defect outcome and the winner…
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.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
What power does the king of England have to make things go off the rails?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.