7 ms·

> one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Doesn't that just shift corruption to the next party? I don't see why logically switching the r

> one of the many reasons why the monarchy should be abolished. Doesn't that just shift corruption to the next party? I don't see why logically switching the ruling party would abolish corruption. It might even increase it.

deepsun 6y ago
Speaking from a very corrupt eastern european country -- practice shows that each change of power lessens corruption somewhat -- who knows what next leaders will dig out, better stay safe. The longer same functioneers stay in power, the deeper is corruption.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  Hey neighbour! Our lot aren't deterred, each government is about as corrupt as the last...
- type0 6y ago
  That's no good, in the Soviet Union corruption only lasted for 5 years until it was replaced by the new one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_nation...
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    What are you talking about? The USSR was ruled by the same party its whole existence.
    - type0 6y ago
      I am talking about this thing called joke. Bureaucratic corruption (outside the party) did change somewhat for 5 years at the time.
      - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
        But plans were made by the same people...
crumbshot 6y ago
Corruption amongst other members of the upper and ruling classes is not a good reason to avoid dealing with the most undemocratic of them all. Also, the wider principle is that there shouldn't be an untouchable hereditary ruling class at all. It's an absolute nonsense.
- zepto 6y ago
  Most countries have a hereditary ruling class. At least with the Royal Family, you know who they are.
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    Indeed, and they should all be targeted for removal. One of the key problems in many human societies is that most of the wealth and power ends up concentrated in the hands of the undeserving few, who use it to further enrich themselves and their families, at the expense of everyone else.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Another key problem is that every now and then someone declares themselves more deserving than the current few who are in power and lines them up against a wall to be shot by a death squad.
      - crumbshot 6y ago
        I'm not advocating for that, if that's what you're implying. "Targeted for removal" wasn't intended as a euphemism for death squads or anything like that.
        zepto 6y ago
        A helpful clarification.
osrec 6y ago
Perhaps, but let's sort the problem at hand first? The monarchy in the UK only seems to benefit themselves and tabloid newspapers. While the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect), the rest of her family seem pretty terrible with their crazy shenanigans.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect)" What work does the Queen actually do?
  - philistine 6y ago
    That’s what the article at play here discovered: she makes sure no law can ever touch her pot of gold. Oh and god forbid any law force them to use a seatbelt.
  - tomcam 6y ago
    She is the head of state, a job for which the president of the USA has to pull double duty while also being the executive. It is an incredibly tedious job, requiring her to go to endless factory openings funerals, and so on. She doesn’t really have to do those things, but she has done them dutifully for 75 years or so. As far as I’m concerned it’s amazing and probably does a measurable amount to contribute to the stability of the country. Can’t prove it, of course. As an American citizen it is why I don’t mind presidents that I don’t like have a large secret service revenue, fat salary, and so forth both during and after their presidency.
    - tomcam 6y ago
      EDIT: "secret service retinue", not "...revenue"
  - foldr 6y ago
    More than most women her age, I think it’s fair to say. If the Queen was lazy she could have abdicated two decades ago with some justification.
Barrin92 6y ago
there's never a guarantee that anyone isn't corrupt, but switching from an opaque, land-owning monarchy to something like the German presidency which has the same function (mostly symbolic, but has some emergency powers), at least gives clear transparent procedures, is accountable to the public in formal ways, draws a regular salary, and isn't living off inherited wealth. What exactly is the justification for having those tasks, if they're deemed necessary, executed by some hereditary, secretive, uber-wealthy family rather than by someone who is actually a civil servant?
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  Monarchy is superior to democracy in a very important way. When a monarch sends you off to die in war, the monarch is spending their own resources: you. And therefore the monarch's own wealth and power is at stake. In a democracy the president sends you off to die at no cost to themselves and only really strands to gain from the kickbacks.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    In a proper democracy, a group of elected officials convene and then give permission to the president to send you off to die.
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      That group of elected officials is still spending your life to enrich themselves at no personal risk. By nature of the monarch owning you and the country, if the country loses the monarch loses.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        This doesn't appear to be true at any time in history for a plethora of monarchies. Do you have anything to support your argument save for your well articulated but poorly reasoned thought process?
mhh__ 6y ago
Because currently we have a ruling party, and the queen can interfere before that ruling party tables a bill to parliament. Also, the Monarchy is effectively a mechanism for it's powers to be controlled by ministers, this means parliament can and has been effectively shut down temporarily to avoid debate at the whim of Government Ministers against the will of parliament itself.

deepsun 6y ago

Speaking from a very corrupt eastern european country -- practice shows that each change of power lessens corruption somewhat -- who knows what next leaders will dig out, better stay safe. The longer same functioneers stay in power, the deeper is corruption.

StavrosK 6y ago
Hey neighbour! Our lot aren't deterred, each government is about as corrupt as the last...
type0 6y ago
That's no good, in the Soviet Union corruption only lasted for 5 years until it was replaced by the new one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_national_economy_of_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-year_plans_for_the_nation...
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  What are you talking about? The USSR was ruled by the same party its whole existence.
  - type0 6y ago
    I am talking about this thing called joke. Bureaucratic corruption (outside the party) did change somewhat for 5 years at the time.
    - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      But plans were made by the same people...

crumbshot 6y ago

Corruption amongst other members of the upper and ruling classes is not a good reason to avoid dealing with the most undemocratic of them all. Also, the wider principle is that there shouldn't be an untouchable hereditary ruling class at all. It's an absolute nonsense.

zepto 6y ago
Most countries have a hereditary ruling class. At least with the Royal Family, you know who they are.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  Indeed, and they should all be targeted for removal. One of the key problems in many human societies is that most of the wealth and power ends up concentrated in the hands of the undeserving few, who use it to further enrich themselves and their families, at the expense of everyone else.
  - zepto 6y ago
    Another key problem is that every now and then someone declares themselves more deserving than the current few who are in power and lines them up against a wall to be shot by a death squad.
    - crumbshot 6y ago
      I'm not advocating for that, if that's what you're implying. "Targeted for removal" wasn't intended as a euphemism for death squads or anything like that.
      - zepto 6y ago
        A helpful clarification.

osrec 6y ago

Perhaps, but let's sort the problem at hand first? The monarchy in the UK only seems to benefit themselves and tabloid newspapers. While the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect), the rest of her family seem pretty terrible with their crazy shenanigans.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"the Queen has been a dutiful monarch (whos work ethic I happen to respect)" What work does the Queen actually do?
- philistine 6y ago
  That’s what the article at play here discovered: she makes sure no law can ever touch her pot of gold. Oh and god forbid any law force them to use a seatbelt.
- tomcam 6y ago
  She is the head of state, a job for which the president of the USA has to pull double duty while also being the executive. It is an incredibly tedious job, requiring her to go to endless factory openings funerals, and so on. She doesn’t really have to do those things, but she has done them dutifully for 75 years or so. As far as I’m concerned it’s amazing and probably does a measurable amount to contribute to the stability of the country. Can’t prove it, of course. As an American citizen it is why I don’t mind presidents that I don’t like have a large secret service revenue, fat salary, and so forth both during and after their presidency.
  - tomcam 6y ago
    EDIT: "secret service retinue", not "...revenue"
- foldr 6y ago
  More than most women her age, I think it’s fair to say. If the Queen was lazy she could have abdicated two decades ago with some justification.

Barrin92 6y ago

there's never a guarantee that anyone isn't corrupt, but switching from an opaque, land-owning monarchy to something like the German presidency which has the same function (mostly symbolic, but has some emergency powers), at least gives clear transparent procedures, is accountable to the public in formal ways, draws a regular salary, and isn't living off inherited wealth. What exactly is the justification for having those tasks, if they're deemed necessary, executed by some hereditary, secretive, uber-wealthy family rather than by someone who is actually a civil servant?

Consultant32452 6y ago
Monarchy is superior to democracy in a very important way. When a monarch sends you off to die in war, the monarch is spending their own resources: you. And therefore the monarch's own wealth and power is at stake. In a democracy the president sends you off to die at no cost to themselves and only really strands to gain from the kickbacks.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  In a proper democracy, a group of elected officials convene and then give permission to the president to send you off to die.
  - Consultant32452 6y ago
    That group of elected officials is still spending your life to enrich themselves at no personal risk. By nature of the monarch owning you and the country, if the country loses the monarch loses.
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      This doesn't appear to be true at any time in history for a plethora of monarchies. Do you have anything to support your argument save for your well articulated but poorly reasoned thought process?

mhh__ 6y ago

Because currently we have a ruling party, and the queen can interfere before that ruling party tables a bill to parliament. Also, the Monarchy is effectively a mechanism for it's powers to be controlled by ministers, this means parliament can and has been effectively shut down temporarily to avoid debate at the whim of Government Ministers against the will of parliament itself.