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

Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej Dies at 88

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej Dies at 88

#71

Post by jburgess777 »

AdamN wrote: post #24
nihonde wrote: post #4

The reverence that Thai people have for this King is no joking matter. They take their monarch deadly seriously and it seems fair to let them honor the King as they see fit without a lot of outsiders casually weighing in with half-baked opinions.

I'm American and there are people from all over the world casually weighing in about America on HN. That's totally OK. Let's not have a double standard and let's be free to have opinions about other peoples' royals.

To frame things in a UK context, which seems more similar to the Thailand situation then the USA.

The monarchy is (almost) completely separate from the political system. While many people might debate the pros and cons of the Conservatives versus Labour, UKIP or liberal democrats, very few question the role of Queen Elizabeth II.

In the UK, the monarch has the the right to veto legislation passed through the parliament but this right is rarely exercised. This is quite different to the US system where the president is ultimately in charge and has to fight for re-election every few years.

It sounds like the monarchy in Thailand has strived to maintain stability for the people in spite of an unstable political environment. This might explain why the people continue to believe in the monarchy in Thailand in a way which seems alien to anyone in the USA.

Re: Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej Dies at 88

#72

Post by truth_sentinell »

rosser wrote: post #47
truth_sentinell wrote: post #12

Can't believe there are still monarchs in 2016. Definitely there are millions of people living in 1500. Abolish monarchy!!!

There's a pretty substantial difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional one (which Thailand is). Just ask the Dutch how they feel about it, for example. Monarchies are not necessarily bad, and the kind of shallow, absolutist thinking displayed here contributes nothing to the discussion.

What do you mean by constitutional? The are two types: Inherited monarchy and "elected". In the last, the election is from a specific group of people and the monarch is not chosen by Public vote. Nobody should have privileges above others and the power to constitutionally influence their lives just because they happened to be born in a "royal family".

Apparently we have some UK's Queen fans, since my comment is down voted.

Re: Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej Dies at 88

#73

Post by rosser »

truth_sentinell wrote: post #72
rosser wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a pretty substantial difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional one (which Thailand is). Just ask the Dutch how they feel about it, for example. Monarchies are not necessarily bad, and the kind of shallow, absolutist thinking displayed here contributes nothing to the discussion.

What do you mean by constitutional? The are two types: Inherited monarchy and "elected". In the last, the election is from a specific group of people and the monarch is not chosen by Public vote. Nobody should have privileges above others and the power to constitutionally influence their lives just because they happened to be born in a "royal family". Apparently we have some UK's Queen fans, since my comment is down…

Seriously, if you don't know (or can't do the research to figure out) the difference between a constitutional monarchy and the other kinds, you really don't have a lot of basis to be weighing in, IMO.

Again, look at how the Dutch do it. As with so many other things in this world, they get it pretty damned right.

Re: Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej Dies at 88

#74

Post by truth_sentinell »

rosser wrote: post #73
truth_sentinell wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by constitutional? The are two types: Inherited monarchy and "elected". In the last, the election is from a specific group of people and the monarch is not chosen by Public vote. Nobody should have privileges above others and the power to constitutionally influence their lives just because they happened to be born in a "royal family". Apparently we have some UK's Queen fans, since my comment is down…

Seriously, if you don't know (or can't do the research to figure out) the difference between a constitutional monarchy and the other kinds, you really don't have a lot of basis to be weighing in, IMO. Again, look at how the Dutch do it. As with so many other things in this world, they get it pretty damned right.

From wikipedia: > The monarchy of the Netherlands passes by right of succession to the heirs of William I.[Cons 1] The heir is determined through two mechanisms: absolute cognatic primogeniture and proximity of blood.

Again, what are you talking about mate? The fact that their country is doing well doesn't mean it's ok to decide on the lives of people just because you're the son of a monarch. There could be a lot of people more prepare and that could do better.

Re: Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej Dies at 88

#75

Post by flukus »

truth_sentinell wrote: post #74
rosser wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, if you don't know (or can't do the research to figure out) the difference between a constitutional monarchy and the other kinds, you really don't have a lot of basis to be weighing in, IMO. Again, look at how the Dutch do it. As with so many other things in this world, they get it pretty damned right.

From wikipedia: > The monarchy of the Netherlands passes by right of succession to the heirs of William I.[Cons 1] The heir is determined through two mechanisms: absolute cognatic primogeniture and proximity of blood. Again, what are you talking about mate? The fact that their country is doing well doesn't mean it's ok to decide on the lives of people just because you're the son of a monarch. There could be a lot of…

Now look up what power a King has in a constitutional monarchy. Hint: It's fuck all.

Re: Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej Dies at 88

#76

Post by superfluid »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #50
truth_sentinell wrote: post #12

Can't believe there are still monarchs in 2016. Definitely there are millions of people living in 1500. Abolish monarchy!!!

...You realize that a lot of Western countries, like the UK, Canada, New Zealand, etc are monarchies, right? Thailand largely functions either as a parliamentary system or military junta, depending on the year.

In practice, Canada is about as close to a monarchy as North Korea is to a democracy.
Post reply on HN