What’s wrong with Britain? Let’s start with the monarchy (2021)
opendemocracy.net
opendemocracy.net
The British Royal Family are Leeches sucking the wealth of the Nation and indirectly the life of the hardworking Common Man. They have absolutely nothing to justify their existence in today's times; There is nothing there contributing to the greater good (actual) of the Society. As the article states it is a carefully managed Firm/Corporation with an excellent image building/maintaining team fooling the British Public as to its continued relevance. It is high time they are demoted to nonentities as has happened to Royals in other Countries.
Every British Citizen should read The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Étienne de La Boétie and de-legitimize the British Royal "Mafia".
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/kurz-the-discourse-of-volu...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
> Its central argument is that concentrated minor interests will be overrepresented and diffuse majority interests trumped, due to a free-rider problem that is stronger when a group becomes larger.
Basically, tight groups, can leverage their power over larger, less organised groups, by buying off and/or threatening anyone who steps out of line.
I have read about this in Robert Axelrod's The Evolution/Complexity of Cooperation books where you can beat the "optimal" strategy by cheating (i.e. forming vested groups) as above.
Nassim Taleb also talks about this in his books - https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dict...
It is also why i don't think we can have a True Democracy but only various shades of Oligarchies masquerading as Democracies.
Even from a cynical, financial perspective, it's and ideological statement not grounded in economic reality.
The UK Royals bring vastly more value to the UK in prestige, soft power and tourism, than the paltry sum they are afforded, almost all of which is effectively state related.
The amount spent on UK Royals is negligible in the context of the overall budget - and it's spent on the 'office', not on the individuals.
From a 'Marketing ROI' perspective, there's probably no better investment.
More practically, those individuals actually do a 'job' - they as individuals are not the same thing as their positions; it's a fallacy to suggest that 'They Get Money!'. They don't. The effective 'Branch of Government' does. Do you think that arbitrary billionaires would sink $50M into 'Windsor Castle Repairs'? Of course not. Almost all of the expenditures are effectively state related.
Moreover, these 'capitalist insinuations' are effectively falshoods. The Firm has to stay a country mile away from any kind of real business dealings.
Do you know how much The Firm could actually rake in, if they wanted to / were allowed to? They're worth many Billions in brand endorsements. Prince William shilling for Land Rover? Kate for British Airways? That alone is north of $100M over even a short period.
In Canada, they have a Governor General - nobody would suggest that their offices and residence, and all the fanfare, amount to some kind of 'property'.
And all of that doesn't even touch on the historical aspects of the institutions.
These arguments are grounded in a kind of populist jealousy - The Queen 'does more' for the UK than say, LeBron James does for the US. And he's now a billionaire, and can spend that Billion any way he likes. The Queen really can't. 'Elizabeth' is not free to spend 'The Queen's' money.
'The Politics of Obedience' is equally populist: "why is it that a minority of rulers can remain in power over a majority of subjects who pay all the taxes."
? Because the leadership of any group will always be relatively small, irrespective of their means of ascension to power, legitimacy, competency.
The French Revolution, as a matter of focus on 'rights' was a good idea, but concern over the King's Estate was populist stupidity.
King Louis 'stuff' never really did cost that much, his wars, i.e. 'affairs of state' were what always killed the Treasury.
'Repairs to Windsor Castle', in relative terms, cost almost nothing.
As a really crude analogy, UK Royals are like a 'living' version of Notre Dame Cathedral. It's not like even the most ardent anti-Catholics would want to tear it down 'because maintenance costs!'.
The older I become, the more I become suspicious of the absolutist orientation we have towards many of our modern values. We want to replace everything with some kind of egalitarian variation of TikTok. It's all nice and fun, but I'm becoming more inclined to think almost anything with any degree of actual authenticity should be preserved and upheld.
I'm not what you would call a 'Royalist' but I think we're far better off with them than not, even though I accept there are good arguments either way.
I like what the French have done with their monarchy. They preserved the king's estate as the state's estate. Everyone can now visit the Palace of Versailles - access is not restricted to the royal family.
I'm not saying the British should end the monarchy and demote the royal family. It's their problem, they should handle it as they see fit. I am just saying I admire the French for setting things straight and not tolerating a priviledged class. Of course there are still priviledged former aristocrats in France, but still it's to a lesser extent than in the UK, where a few landlords lease out housing lots in London.
There is basically no difference at all between the current degree of classicism in Germany, France or UK.
They have an 'egalitarian' / 'Republican' attitude, supposedly, but it's all just the same.
UK has Oxbridge, and France has their 'Grande Ecoles' - and the attendance of these schools by various classes is about the same.
'English Nobility' etc. don't have that much impact on the reality of UK institutions, operations etc..
Again - and this is kind of what I'm hinting at in my answer: both classicm and anti-classism ... it's mostly preformative.
The UK had a 'revolution' in 1215 with the Magna Carta, and subsequent revolutions with War of the Roses, and Cromwell's Republic. Mini revolutions throughout the ages that put the Monarchs power in about the right place.
In France, the King had enormous power (and the Church etc..) and so things got to a revolutionary breaking point.
But in reality they are just about the same.
Even in Germany.
Now drop this one in your pipe to smoke:
'Gini' coefficient, i.e. measure of inequality, tend to be 'more equal' in European countries with current/historical monarchies than in the USA, supposedly 'land of the free'.
So UK, Demnark, Sweden, Netherlands - all Constitutional Monarchies, are much more 'egalitarian' than the US, which has enshrined in it's principles, a kind of 'egalitarianism'.
I'm not a fan of 'Critical Theory' but that is absolutely a subject for 'Critical Theorists' to deconstruct, in that the 'narrative' of 'freedom' in the US (and France) doesn't really line up with reality very well.
The article itself refutes some of these opinions/arguments and i am sure that if one consults the referenced books everyone of the above statements would be demolished with Facts. I can do it myself but it would take me too much time.
Some examples;
>and it's spent on the 'office', not on the individuals.
Distinction without a difference.
>More practically, those individuals actually do a 'job' - they as individuals are not the same thing as their positions;
Only in a biological sense; In the Social sense they are nothing without their positions.
>Moreover, these 'capitalist insinuations' are effectively falsehoods
The data is right there in the article.
>These arguments are grounded in a kind of populist jealousy
Ha, Ha, Ha !
>Because the leadership of any group will always be relatively small, irrespective of their means of ascension to power, legitimacy, competency
This is not Leadership but "privilege by birth".
I've prevented you with actual arguments - which you cant even respond to.
There are some easy arguments against the Royals but you haven't even started with them.
...
"Distinction without a difference."
The Windsor's have innumerable, obvious, trivially verifiable constraints on their wealth.
More than constraints, 'responsibilities'.
Those constraints and responsibilities are 'existential' to the relationship with their wealth.
It's a ridiculous to suggest their 'wealth' is the same as the wealth of other 'billionaires'.
They are not even comparable -> 'Gish Gallop'
...
"Only in a biological sense; In the Social sense they are nothing without their positions."
'They do a job in a biological sense' - is incoherent - this doesn't even make sense.
They do a job.
Their jobs are inherited, yes, which is a different argument.
Primogeniture is one way to get a job, it still happens all over the world in public and private, and indirectly to varying degrees, 'where and who you are born to' makes a big difference for everyone.
It's 'unfair' - but it doesn't mean they don't 'do a job'.
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is the 'Male Heir' of the Prime Minstership of Pierre Trudeau.
Trudeau Jr. is a lazy ass; He dropped out of Engineering, and then did nothing for nearly 20 years of his life. No job, not accomplishments, no processional development. Empty resume. 'Went Backpacking'.
'Politics' was his last shot at doing anything, due to his positive qualities (he's 'pretty' and 'articulate') and has an 'important last name' and so 'The Party' roped him in out of desperation.
Moreover - the 'Prime Ministership' is a 'very real job' - it's not ceremonial, it's material.
Anyone concerned with 'primogeniture' - should be much, much more concerned about this happening in the realm of political and consequence.
Prince William was learning to fly Search and Rescue Helicopters and running Missions during that period of his life. Material, applied, civic, character building. Is that a 'big deal'? No, of course not - but it's something, on average more than others.
He's prepared for 'his specific job' of 'Public Relations / Ceremonial Head of State'. Which is a job, irrespective of how he got it.
...
"The data is right there in the article."
No - there is no 'data' in the article.
You're accusing me of 'Gish Gallop'?
Again, misdirection and hand-waving lies.
The article purported: 'The monarchs in the past benefited from capitalism' with indirect references to deals made centuries ago.
And FYI that's it's even 'capitalism' - it's 'mercantilism'.
The entire leadership of every group and nation were involved in those kinds of things. 'Everyone' has 'benefited' from those past activities, and mostly those at the time they were made. It makes little difference today.
The implication of UK Royal's having offshore accounts has nothing to do with 'capitalism' - moreover, it's a common, global practice.
Google and Barack Obama have 'offshore accounts'.
And so?
Maybe we should have some kind of tax reform, but the Royals are not distinct in this way.
As far as 'capitalism' in the actual, real sense - not made up historical allusions and bullshit - it is easily demonstrated that the Royals, if they wanted to be 'actual capitalists' could rake in enormous sums - more than they earn through their historical asset holdings.
Netflix offered Harry and Meghan $100M - minor, non-Royals, for one, simple deal.
HRH Royals could earn 10x that with the wave of a hand, which is factual, quantifiable, verifiable.
...
"These arguments are grounded in a kind of populist jealousy"
"Ha ha ha"
Then why are you lying?
Frothing angry prose on 'the internets' on a Sunday?
Why are these arguments reaching into fantasy and bad rhetoric - especially when there are easier arguments at hand?
'class warfare populist jealousy'.
They have an 'inherited system' - some view that as unfair, and that's almost all 100% of the argument.
It's visible, apparent, as opposed to the inherited power (and lack of accountability / responsibility) of so many others.
Personally - I'm over it; There are a million things that are unfair in life. On the balance, it's a benefit.
Would we start a monarchy today? No. Should most or all positions be established on the basis of primogeniture, obviously not.
Does it matter that someone, somewhere inherits their position? There are issues, but it also works on other levels. It works.
...
"This is not Leadership but "privilege by birth"."
First, it's obviously leadership; QE2 is respected for her role, even among those who don't support the system.
... but more baffling: 90% of our leaders have a 'privileged birth'. This has little to do with 'Royals'.
But this has little to do with to the pseudo-intellectual historical rant that was referenced.
The article in fact, is evidence of populist classist sentiment - literally from the summary:
"Why do the minority control the system when the majority pay the taxes"
It's an adolescent non-sequitur that belongs on Reddit.
The minority will always have more power, that's the nature of how we organize ourselves, and there will always be a degree of inherited power.
You are not even debating, you are making up your own points and knocking them down (or so you seem to think) yourself. Getting your "knickers in a bunch" does not help your arguments.
Start here for some actual edification :
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Ki... (pay particular attention to the Arguments section)
Let's assume for a moment that the absolute total assets of the Royal Family, both private and those legally tied to the crown as an institution though nominally the private property of the Queen and her family (respectively claimed to be about a billion dollars for the first and $28 billion for the second, wider category of assets), are all expropriated and given to the state for public funding use. What does this amount to? What could it really buy or do and for how long?
Even assuming that some funds and sources of income are concealed through quasi-legal or even completely illegal asset protection mechanisms (and they almost surely are) the Family's total assets would still surely amount to no more than a fraction of the UK government's annual spending, which in fiscal 2020-21 officially sat at about £1,098.6 billion, or nearly 1.4 trillion dollars.
This is the more fundamental point that so often doesn't get looked at by pieces like these. They focus so intensely on the amounts often concealed by the wealthy through tax avoidance, tax evasion and so forth while bemoaning how these assets are thus implicitly stolen from public use by the state, while failing to sincerely examine the simple fact that most developed modern governments annually collect and spend such vast amounts of money that their totals dwarf even the full total assets of any private fortune.
Much of that public spending is necessary, sure, but how much of it could easily be trimmed or done better in ways that would reduce it even by small percentages that would still be vast in comparison to private assets owned by the crown. Should the focus not be more heavily oriented to seriously scrutinizing how the biggest parasite of all, the state uses its funds? At the very least not analyzing that philosophically seems absurdly blind.
And do governments spend money terribly at times? Of course they do. The U.S Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost the country 2 trillion or more dollars across two decades. For what? The UK'S participation in these same wars cost that country an officially audited total of over £21 billion sterling. This doesn't even include certain time frames and categories of related spending. This amount alone -almost entirely pissed away for pseudo-imperial adventure to no concrete gain- nearly matches all known assets, both private and official crown property, of the Royal Family. Not to defend them or their special status, but things like this make much more obvious the real area for focus on how powerful entities spend money.
Take the queen’s money and set it on fire, or give it back piecemeal to the colonists that were exploited. In any case, burn it all down, because it has no place in the democratic world.
And again, what about vast government revenue generation, taxation systems and the things they often get spent on? These absolutely do have relevance to any discussion about tax percentages, policies and how wealthy people are treated by the systems they operate in.
If you want to discuss the same by the "State" that is a different discussion altogether.
The former is not predicated on the latter.
That aside, it's a very important related debate that gets less attention from activist media than it fairly deserves. Many organizations and reporters spend enormous effort focusing on billions concealed by wealthy individuals and families, while taking for granted that governments should spend literally many, many trillions annually with little regard fo whether they should have a right to such vast sums.
The state is an abstraction in such a way that makes focusing dislike for it more difficult than against specific billionaire families jet setting around the world to move secret money, but the former causes far more waste, loss, theft and harm than these families do. It does this even while it often protects them and itself at the same time. The picture is complicated, but too often gets reduced to cliche emphasis on narratives of billionaires and Caribbean bank accounts.
To put it another way, the average Briton is little affected by the Royal Family receiving some marginally miniscule percentage of that person's taxes for some special favor or another. This same average Briton is however annually and enormously affected by the 20% to 45% income tax rate they pay to the state as a whole. Much of this money pays for needed services, yes, but what government wastes in its self-justified spending and the associated social harm are still far larger than what any Royal ever takes from any private individual.