I (Canadian) would personally vote to be a republic. Symbolic or not, I think it's absurd that hereditary rule exists in any form in the current day and age.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country
And 8 out of the top 10 are also constitution monarchies. Plenty of symbolic-president republics in the top twenty though.
Whatever replacement system that is proposed needs to have a decent track record.
Forgive me if I don't trust their judgement. I'd take any western European republic's system over ours in a heartbeat.
Also, keep in mind that in Canada, our government is currently formed by the party that got the second most votes and has had so many scandals that half the leadership should be in jail, not in power (not that I'd be particularly thrilled about the Cons in power either, they're at least as inept albeit probably slightly less corrupt). We also have an appointed senate, which is basically just political patronage. Same goes for the GG spot. We have entire provinces run by oligarchs. And so on. If we're considered a 'full democracy' then I don't trust whoever made that proclamation.
A more thoughtful response might have taken the time to contemplate the origins of government and the relationship between “absurdity,” your understanding of government and of virtuous government, and of the post-enlightenment ideologies assumed natural to our societies; in truth the vague syllogism between law and privilege you present is not some physical reality or logical QED but a gestural summation of ideas only very lately arrived to human affairs. Contemplative silence is one among many more interesting responses that were available to you.
In short: it’s obvious that ancient institutions and modern humanism are absurdly dissonant. Cleary OP meant to provoke a reconsideration, not a restatement, of the obvious.
Ironically it is obvious that one should not bother trying to rescue internet comments from their own pig-headedness - but sometimes I do sorely miss past iterations of HN.
OP asked a question. I gave what seems to me to be the obvious answer.
Well all of us have less wealth and privilege than the royalty by virtue of our birth and it's somehow enshrined in law.
No, no, no. Being against racism means you give people a fair chance irrespective of their race. It does not mean you want everyone to be equal due to the conditions of their birth.
In fact, we do not want people to be equal at all, as we need specialization, and people are highly unequal, oftentimes because of the conditions of their birth.
For example, it may well be that the condition of Sam's birth makes him a better diamond cutter than the condition of Joe's birth -- Sam might have been born into a family of diamond cutters who trained him when he was a baby, slicing apples in a certain way and whittling on wood all the time. Or maybe there is a diamond cutter gene that Sam has, which gives him superior diamond cutting skills.
We'd still hire Sam because he was a better diamond cutter. What we wouldn't do, is refuse to hire Sam solely because he was Swedish, and we don't think Swedes can be good diamond cutters, and so we wont even give Sam a chance to prove he really is better Joe.
The first sentence of the first article:
> All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
You're complicating things. I believe in republicanism (ie. not monarchy), freedom, equality, etc... The existence of a monarchy means we aren't born with equal rights and dignity.