Comment by outime | Hacker News Reader

Comment by outime | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Changing the head of state from a powerless unelected to a powerless (or worse, powerful) elected head of state would change little practically.

>Can you not see any advantages and positive achievements of the British history of constitutional monarchy, common law, Bill of Rights, etc? Jury trials, habeas corpus, etc, have done much for freedom. The legacy code, if we might call it that, is the only thing still holding back the authoritarian ambitions of the powerful.

So what's your position exactly? On one side you claim it's a powerless family that would get replaced by a (potentially) worse elected person, on the other side it turns out it's a very influential family that prevents authoritarians from taking the power. Then, you finish up with non specific examples of republics that are much worse off than UK monarchy while conveniently excluding republics that are doing equally well or better than UK (you didn't specify in what UK is better so I can also be nebulous I guess).

In my view, monarchy is an artifact of the past. It's pretty much a family inheriting rather high privileges because of some things (which we can agree were important) that happened in the remote past. Nowadays, what's the point? Why do we need to continue with that? If they're powerless as you say, why not just get rid of them? Save money, make the country more democratic (at least on paper) and all that. Oh yeah, and as a spaniard I can also guarantee that a monarch can become a piece of trash like any elected official so those guarantees are thin as paper.

I just would like to hear real arguments about why a monarchy is so much better than an alternative.

> On one side you claim it's a powerless family that would get replaced by a worse elected person, on the other side it turns out it's a very influential family that prevents authoritarians from taking the power.

That's exactly the trick. Have the head of the state encrusted in titles, ceremony and tradition, but with no practical power. Leave the gritty parts of politics to the parliament. Let the King shake hands and open buildings and leave the governing to the MPs. It was basically figured out over centuries of compromise and finalised with William III's Glorious Revolution. Britain has had some bad eggs but never a tyrant. We've never had a Robespierre, Stalin, Mau or Franco. It seems to have worked.

> Save money

I look forward to finding a politician who will work for nothing. The royal family pay for themselves through their own property and holdings, they actually pay 80% of their earnings to the state and keep the remaining 20% for themselves.

While how much money is spent on American presidential elections? It will frighten you. That money has to buy something, right?

> Nowadays, what's the point? Why do we need to continue with that?

Generally we continue with things because they've worked well for us for centuries. I don't see anyone in the current political class that I'd rather have as a 'president' than Elizabeth II or even Charles III. The British way is empiricism, biased more to observation than pure reason.

> I just would like to hear real arguments about why a monarchy is so much better than an alternative.

It gives us someone who can speak for the nation, untainted by party politics. This is something you'll miss if you abolish the monarchy.

If you are actually curious to read the other side, I'd recommend Roger Scruton.

> That's exactly the trick. Have the head of the state encrusted in titles, ceremony and tradition, but with no practical power.

The British Monarch has more practical power than some elected heads of state in parliamentary republics (who typically do not have both vast personal landholdings and properties tied to the job and a veto, exercised confidentially, on any law that would impact them in their enjoyment of those privileges, which serves for potent and secret leverage on general legislation.)

>Let the King shake hands and open buildings and leave the governing to the MPs

If the king/queen shakes hands and open buildings, do we really need a royal family with all its associated costs (not only monetary) or a single appointed person that can do these things and get replaced if it's not doing a good job? Let the people vote for it in elections or let the Parliament appoint someone to do these things. I just don't see why the nation should keep giving power to the same family over and over.

>I look forward to finding a politician who will work for nothing. The royal family pay for themselves through their own property and holdings, they actually pay 80% of their earnings to the state and keep the remaining 20% for themselves.

I didn't say it'd cost nothing. Also, the majority of the property and holdings of the royal families come from all those privileges obtained over the centuries, which they get to enjoy while the rest of the people don't have a chance unless allowed in isolated occasions (if so).

>Generally we continue with things because they've worked well for us for centuries. I don't see anyone in the current political class that I'd rather have as a 'president' than Elizabeth II or even Charles III. The British way is empiricism, biased more to observation than pure reason.

Fine, but this is literally an appeal to tradition [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

>It gives us someone who can speak for the nation, untainted by party politics. This is something you'll miss if you abolish the monarchy.

But this is the case in many republics as well! I live in Finland where the head of state speaks for the nation and is untainted by party politics. He was elected in 2012 and re-elected multiple times, becoming one of the highest valued officials of all time (I think it's currently the second). I have listened to him a bunch of times and I can clearly see he's a "king" with the difference of eventually getting replaced due to better people around or just doing poorly. Good luck doing that with a king/queen - in Spain, it just happened when scandals keep stacking up to an unbearable point where he had to forcefully abdicate or else monarchy could have been really gone.

All this being said, I believe the discussion won't become very productive because you're pro-monarchy and I'm anti-monarchy, in general terms, and some couple paragraphs here and there probably can't change much (specially given the feeling we're both well informed about our positions and it's not simple fanatism). We have exposed our arguments but I really see this can get really long and at the end pointless. I appreciate the time you spent answering my questions with your opinions that, while I don't agree with, are respectable and educated. I'll take a look at Mr Scruton.

Likewise, thanks for your time. You've given me a few things to think about.

I'll concede that the Finnish presidency sounds like a fair option, with some of the benefits I see in the monarchy. Longer term, but ceremonial and elected presidents are preferable to what we see in America. I think it is a similar arrangement in Ireland and Germany.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com