25 ms·
I do not approve of concepts like a ruling family, and favor mobility- but I have slowly come to appreciate the value of being groomed for a responsibility your
by ip26 4y ago
I do not approve of concepts like a ruling family, and favor mobility- but I have slowly come to appreciate the value of being groomed for a responsibility your entire life. I am not sure such dedicated & devout public servants come about naturally.
- sph 4y agoYou don't choose the royal life, the royal life chooses you.
- Silverback_VII 4y agoYou don't choose the peasant life, the peasant life chooses you.
- incone123 4y agoYou can marry in, which amounts to choosing the royal life. (Maybe not you specifically, but people have married in)
- chousuke 4y agoI think with that wording it's easy to slip into thinking that a person's lineage has anything to do with their suitability to be educated for a specific role or how well they may perform in that role. Nothing arises "naturally"; It's the education and access to vast support resources that creates exceptional people, and if you want more of those, you should want to ensure that the greatest number of people have access to enough resources that anyone can have a chance to make the most of their inborn advantages (whatever they may be) regardless of the circumstances of their birth.
- spoonjim 4y agoAnyone who would seek out a monarchy would almost certainly be a sociopath. That's why it must be a birthright.
- confidantlake 4y agoThere is a third way, it could be decided by chance.
- astrange 4y agoSortition would be a better approach - elect a list of people who are all "good enough" and then choose randomly from them. Constitutional monarchs do have their uses; it's good that someone can fire the head of government, especially if the people can invest in the head of state instead. The US should have one picked from the top 10 Spotify chart. Even if half of them are Canadian.
- nick__m 4y agoI don't know why random selection is considered the gold standard for jury, yet most peoples look at you like you're some kind of deranged fool if you seriously propose "randomocracy" as a form of governance.
- bell-cot 4y agoIn the context of the modern British crown, the "ruling" is far more ceremonial than substantive. Similar for most other surviving European royal families.
- k__ 4y agoI had the impression royality is a bigger deal in the UK than in the rest of the world.
- foldr 4y ago“The rest of the world” is casting pretty wide net. Was the Queen a more hands-on monarch than Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud?
- k__ 4y agoRight. I meant, in constitutional monarchies.
- yung_steezy 4y agoTechnically the monarch has the power to veto laws that they disagree with instead of signing them in the UK, but in practice that hasn't happened since the 18th century.
- pedrocr 4y agoThe idea that the UK monarchy is largely ceremonial and just a boon for tourism is an incredibly prevalent idea but apparently just good PR. We've learned the monarchy has extensively interfered with the UK's parliament legislative process and done so covertly: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
- baq 4y agocovert lobbying is modus operandi of any democracy. whenever you write to somebody you elected, you're covertly influencing the legislative process...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]