15 ms·

What’s wrong with Britain? Let’s start with the monarchy (2021)

35 points by acqbu 4y ago

rramadass 4y ago
Agree wholeheartedly with the Article and will surely read the Book. 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-voluntary-servitude https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/kurz-the-discourse-of-volu...
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  A more modern take on this question, in a wider form, is Mancur Olsen's Logic of Collective Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action 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.
  - rramadass 4y ago
    Right, Thanks for the pointer to Mancur Olson's book; I didn't know of this. 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-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 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.
- tdubhro1 4y ago
  Agreed; I would add that the monarchy also does much more damage by creating and perpetuating the British class system. I’m not sure it would collapse without them, but it would certainly seem less legitimised. When you step back for a moment and think what the phrase “lower class” applied to people actually means and implies, it’s hard not to be disgusted, horrified and frightened. The “lower class” only exists for the “upper class”, and fascists.
- jollybean 4y ago
  No this is wrong. 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.
jmpman 4y ago
Inheritance tax solves all these problems, both for the royals as well as our elites. The problem is that our elites have collided to avoid inheritance taxes for centuries, and to keep inheritance taxes to a tiny fraction of the overall estate. There will be no true equality until estate taxes eliminate society’s true freeloaders, the trust fund babies.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Colluded?
  - jmpman 4y ago
    Yes… autocorrect. Thanks
helloworld11 4y ago
While I can't say that the monarchy isn't in many ways parasitic and smugly cozy in the financial exceptionalism it gets treated with, I think a lot of this article's focus is absurdly misplaced. 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.
- deleted 4y ago
Proven 4y ago
rwmj 4y ago
The voting system is where you need to start (in the US too), because that stops all other change from happening.

35 points by acqbu 4y ago

Agree wholeheartedly with the Article and will surely read the Book. 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-voluntary-servitude https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/kurz-the-discourse-of-volu...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
A more modern take on this question, in a wider form, is Mancur Olsen's Logic of Collective Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action 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.
- rramadass 4y ago
  Right, Thanks for the pointer to Mancur Olson's book; I didn't know of this. 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-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 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.
tdubhro1 4y ago
Agreed; I would add that the monarchy also does much more damage by creating and perpetuating the British class system. I’m not sure it would collapse without them, but it would certainly seem less legitimised. When you step back for a moment and think what the phrase “lower class” applied to people actually means and implies, it’s hard not to be disgusted, horrified and frightened. The “lower class” only exists for the “upper class”, and fascists.
jollybean 4y ago
No this is wrong. 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.

jmpman 4y ago

Inheritance tax solves all these problems, both for the royals as well as our elites. The problem is that our elites have collided to avoid inheritance taxes for centuries, and to keep inheritance taxes to a tiny fraction of the overall estate. There will be no true equality until estate taxes eliminate society’s true freeloaders, the trust fund babies.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Colluded?
- jmpman 4y ago
  Yes… autocorrect. Thanks

helloworld11 4y ago

While I can't say that the monarchy isn't in many ways parasitic and smugly cozy in the financial exceptionalism it gets treated with, I think a lot of this article's focus is absurdly misplaced. 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.

deleted 4y ago

Proven 4y ago

rwmj 4y ago

The voting system is where you need to start (in the US too), because that stops all other change from happening.