8 ms·

its 2019 and people in developed countries still care about (and support with their taxes) kings, queens, emperors and such?!

by option 7y ago

nine_k 7y ago
You would be shocked to learn how much people willingly donate to churches, temples, cults, and other strictly irrational enterprises. Kings and emperors are a very inexpensive symbolic flourish on top of that — and many of them do a reasonable job of unifying a nation.
- rayiner 7y ago
  I think you mean “partly” rather than “strictly.” Even if you remove the supernatural element (the part that calls for faith, which is not rational), you’re still left with a political, philosophical, and moral framework. Such frameworks aren’t irrational any more than say “social democracy” as a political framework is irrational. The you have the utilitarian social functions. Serving as places for members of the community to interact, a place for children to be socialized, a place to help elderly people stay connected, a vehicle for addressing local social issues.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    A political or philosophical framework needs not be rational to be efficient and useful. The very idea of love (especially as in 2Cor13) is quite irrational, still it worked, and moved a lot of people over millennia.
- cataphract 7y ago
  I'd rather have a city full of churches/mosques/temples, which are at least generally interesting public use buildings, than a skyline dominated by glass towers occupied by banks, insurance and consulting companies. And anyway at least as far as the Catholic church is concerned, most money ends up in social causes.
hbarka 7y ago
I wonder, of civilizations that have lasted the longest, which ones had kings, queens, emperors and such versus the opposite?
- option 7y ago
  I think you are confusing correlation with causation there
- geofft 7y ago
  That's not an argument that something is good. Civilizations willing to perpetuate genocide tend to survive longer and achieve more economic success than those unwilling to, for instance (they face fewer external threats). To be clear I disagree with the person you're responding to - I just think we should be careful about counterarguments with significant collateral moral damage.
  - hbarka 7y ago
    You’ve taken my response to another degree, but I wholeheartedly do not disagree with you. In fact I admire it. I think you want to remind us that we as humans are horrible when given power, irrespective of title.
- lmm 7y ago
  The Republic of Venice was a rare exception in a world of kings/queens/emperors - and also exceptionally stable, prosperous, and quite possibly (depending on how one regards the Meiji Restoration, to return to topic) the long-lasting nation state in history.
npsomaratna 7y ago
People see the royal family as both a living link to their past and a unifying force for the nation that is above mere politics. Add to this the fact that the Japanese royal line is by far the oldest in the world and that the Emperor is also the head of the Shinto religion.
sdrothrock 7y ago
It's 2019 and people still like to mock cultures and traditions blindly. The article does a pretty good job of explaining a lot of the situation in a grounded, rational way -- especially concerns over the uses and potential abuses of taxpayer money. The US essentially deifies the Founding Fathers even though we're living in a world with influences and technologies they could never have anticipated. Why is it ok care so much about that history but not for other countries to care about their history? The system of government also doesn't seem like a firm basis of argument to me. Yes, many governments have moved on from monarchies, but that doesn't mean that there may not be a monarchy in a country in the future, nor does it mean that a monarchy is an objectively terrible country to live in.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  I'd say the grand parent view comes from an uneasiness at anything hereditary, although there's much less objection to hereditary wealth for some reason. So I'd say it comes from a dichotomy between hereditary wealth and hereditary power, although it's well known that monarchs in democracies are tightly constrained while hereditary wealth brings hereditary power. It might be the inevitable tie between monarchy and religion which creates a de facto most "correct" national religion. Along with the occasional claim that mythical origins are literally true. And while comforting, historical and even stabilizing at the moment, it's worth noting that a great many monarchs were quick to join the wrong side of history in WWII. So, for those without a monarch and the attendant enthusiasm, the institution looks like an extremely expensive and potentially dangerous embodiment of unfairness. Without commenting on the correctness of this view, one can see how it would make monarchies and monarchists incomprehensible to outsiders.
  - option 7y ago
    Yes, very well said.
  - mango7283 7y ago
    Off the top of my head, most Western European monarchs headed governments in exile on the side of the allied powers, where are you getting that a great many sided with the wrong side of history?
chrisseaton 7y ago
In the UK I think about 70% of people support the Queen, our head of state. How many people in the US support their head of state? Less than 50%. In practice, it seems to work well for us. We get a representative that most people support. The US republic fails to do that and their representative is always deeply divisive.
- mensetmanusman 7y ago
  The US president has a higher % of support than prime ministers in most EU countries due to the nature of the two party system. E.g. Trump has higher approval ratings than Macron amongst the relative populations. Each system has advantages/disadvantages.
- option 7y ago
  The queen is not your representative, but you are all her “subjects”. She is literally above the law and is thus, by law, some kind of “higher” human than others, which is hilarious. I actually respect your current queen, Elizabeth 2, a person - she is doing great given the situation she was born into. But I despise royals as an institution of power and priveledge.
  - chrisseaton 7y ago
    > you are all her “subjects” This is not true - very few people are subjects. https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subj...
Lazare 7y ago
You're very well aware this occurs. Are you trying to ask why, or to make some social commentary, or were you just deploying snark?
- a_imho 7y ago
  I don't think it necessarily reflects what people think, average folks can do very little to shape the narrative.
gumby 7y ago
> its 2019 and people in developed countries still care about (and support with their taxes) kings, queens, emperors and such?! It's the 21st century and people still seem to consider inheritance of aristocratic levels of wealth acceptable too.
dang 7y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? The discussion that results is generic, shallow, and boring. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

its 2019 and people in developed countries still care about (and support with their taxes) kings, queens, emperors and such?!

by option 7y ago

its 2019 and people in developed countries still care about (and support with their taxes) kings, queens, emperors and such?!

nine_k 7y ago

You would be shocked to learn how much people willingly donate to churches, temples, cults, and other strictly irrational enterprises. Kings and emperors are a very inexpensive symbolic flourish on top of that — and many of them do a reasonable job of unifying a nation.

rayiner 7y ago
I think you mean “partly” rather than “strictly.” Even if you remove the supernatural element (the part that calls for faith, which is not rational), you’re still left with a political, philosophical, and moral framework. Such frameworks aren’t irrational any more than say “social democracy” as a political framework is irrational. The you have the utilitarian social functions. Serving as places for members of the community to interact, a place for children to be socialized, a place to help elderly people stay connected, a vehicle for addressing local social issues.
- nine_k 7y ago
  A political or philosophical framework needs not be rational to be efficient and useful. The very idea of love (especially as in 2Cor13) is quite irrational, still it worked, and moved a lot of people over millennia.
cataphract 7y ago
I'd rather have a city full of churches/mosques/temples, which are at least generally interesting public use buildings, than a skyline dominated by glass towers occupied by banks, insurance and consulting companies. And anyway at least as far as the Catholic church is concerned, most money ends up in social causes.

hbarka 7y ago

I wonder, of civilizations that have lasted the longest, which ones had kings, queens, emperors and such versus the opposite?

option 7y ago
I think you are confusing correlation with causation there
geofft 7y ago
That's not an argument that something is good. Civilizations willing to perpetuate genocide tend to survive longer and achieve more economic success than those unwilling to, for instance (they face fewer external threats). To be clear I disagree with the person you're responding to - I just think we should be careful about counterarguments with significant collateral moral damage.
- hbarka 7y ago
  You’ve taken my response to another degree, but I wholeheartedly do not disagree with you. In fact I admire it. I think you want to remind us that we as humans are horrible when given power, irrespective of title.
lmm 7y ago
The Republic of Venice was a rare exception in a world of kings/queens/emperors - and also exceptionally stable, prosperous, and quite possibly (depending on how one regards the Meiji Restoration, to return to topic) the long-lasting nation state in history.

npsomaratna 7y ago

People see the royal family as both a living link to their past and a unifying force for the nation that is above mere politics. Add to this the fact that the Japanese royal line is by far the oldest in the world and that the Emperor is also the head of the Shinto religion.

sdrothrock 7y ago

It's 2019 and people still like to mock cultures and traditions blindly. The article does a pretty good job of explaining a lot of the situation in a grounded, rational way -- especially concerns over the uses and potential abuses of taxpayer money. The US essentially deifies the Founding Fathers even though we're living in a world with influences and technologies they could never have anticipated. Why is it ok care so much about that history but not for other countries to care about their history? The system of government also doesn't seem like a firm basis of argument to me. Yes, many governments have moved on from monarchies, but that doesn't mean that there may not be a monarchy in a country in the future, nor does it mean that a monarchy is an objectively terrible country to live in.

TomMckenny 7y ago
I'd say the grand parent view comes from an uneasiness at anything hereditary, although there's much less objection to hereditary wealth for some reason. So I'd say it comes from a dichotomy between hereditary wealth and hereditary power, although it's well known that monarchs in democracies are tightly constrained while hereditary wealth brings hereditary power. It might be the inevitable tie between monarchy and religion which creates a de facto most "correct" national religion. Along with the occasional claim that mythical origins are literally true. And while comforting, historical and even stabilizing at the moment, it's worth noting that a great many monarchs were quick to join the wrong side of history in WWII. So, for those without a monarch and the attendant enthusiasm, the institution looks like an extremely expensive and potentially dangerous embodiment of unfairness. Without commenting on the correctness of this view, one can see how it would make monarchies and monarchists incomprehensible to outsiders.
- option 7y ago
  Yes, very well said.
- mango7283 7y ago
  Off the top of my head, most Western European monarchs headed governments in exile on the side of the allied powers, where are you getting that a great many sided with the wrong side of history?

chrisseaton 7y ago

In the UK I think about 70% of people support the Queen, our head of state. How many people in the US support their head of state? Less than 50%. In practice, it seems to work well for us. We get a representative that most people support. The US republic fails to do that and their representative is always deeply divisive.

mensetmanusman 7y ago
The US president has a higher % of support than prime ministers in most EU countries due to the nature of the two party system. E.g. Trump has higher approval ratings than Macron amongst the relative populations. Each system has advantages/disadvantages.
option 7y ago
The queen is not your representative, but you are all her “subjects”. She is literally above the law and is thus, by law, some kind of “higher” human than others, which is hilarious. I actually respect your current queen, Elizabeth 2, a person - she is doing great given the situation she was born into. But I despise royals as an institution of power and priveledge.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > you are all her “subjects” This is not true - very few people are subjects. https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subj...

Lazare 7y ago

You're very well aware this occurs. Are you trying to ask why, or to make some social commentary, or were you just deploying snark?

a_imho 7y ago
I don't think it necessarily reflects what people think, average folks can do very little to shape the narrative.

gumby 7y ago

> its 2019 and people in developed countries still care about (and support with their taxes) kings, queens, emperors and such?! It's the 21st century and people still seem to consider inheritance of aristocratic levels of wealth acceptable too.

dang 7y ago

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? The discussion that results is generic, shallow, and boring. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html