4 ms·

This is as absurd as if he'd been given an honorary title by the Church of Scientology... Am I the only one who sees this as a pitiful attempt by a government

This is as absurd as if he'd been given an honorary title by the Church of Scientology... Am I the only one who sees this as a pitiful attempt by a government to rub elbows with someone who truly has merit, and by doing so to create the notion that there is some form of equality between the two? I think any self-respecting person would decline knighthood. Though I can see in this case how his corporate responsibilities would lead him to accept it in order not to offend British subjects, since doing so might hurt sales.

FrankBooth 15y ago
The entire British government has no merit? Really?
- grandalf 15y ago
  One could make the same argument about the Church of Scientology. The knighthood is via the figurehead, monarchic part of the government which serves no actual purpose.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    I'm guessing two things from this comment. (1) You are a computer programmer. (2) You are not British. Am I right about either of them? I hope so. I upvoted you in sympathy. :)
    - grandalf 15y ago
      You are correct. I have nothing against the British government or the Church of Scientology, but I do think titles of nobility are bizarre and a reminder of our civilization's dark past.
      - sliverstorm 15y ago
        Do they really differ from the titles we use in the USA? "Senator" Bush. "Mr. President" (every president past and present) "Sir" is no more a title of nobility (today) than any of those.
        grandalf 15y ago
        You would have to be the biggest cynic in the world about democracy to think there is no difference between an elected senator and a monarchic (hereditary) title of nobility.
        ErrantX 15y ago
        FWIW KBE's are not hereditary titles :-) he can't pass it on. Here in the UK it is nowadays largely recognised as part of a larger (including OBE and MBE etc.) merit system recognising achievement. A national honour roll. Now if we were talking about hereditary lordships...
        megablast 15y ago
        It is almost as if you are trying not to understand, and just want to lash out at this, no matter what. Yes, it is a title, nothing more, nothing huge, almost completely meaningless.
        grandalf 15y ago
        That's my point, it' meaningless. That modern humans think it's a big deal is the scary part.
        sliverstorm 15y ago
        Yet you are the one sounding the war drums.
        grandalf 15y ago
        Just trying to correct for the very common pro government bias.
      - blurbytree 15y ago
        They are a fantastic way to honor people who have made a large contribution to society.
EToS 15y ago
Troll much?
- grandalf 15y ago
  It's not a troll. Why do governmental institutions deserve an ounce more (or less) credibility than non-governmental ones like the Gates Foundation or the Church of Scientology. We're all just in the habit of glorifying those who have power over us (or who once did) and treating nonsense like this as if it was a real honor. If you want to honor Ives, buy an Apple product.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Err... government props up your life as you know it. You drive on public roads. You engage in an entire economy stabilized by FDIC backing and various other tactics. You are kept safe by public employees- policemen, firemen, et al. Yet you say we should find government no more credible than Scientology?
    - Stratego 15y ago
      In defining who merits respect? You're damned right it is no more credible than Scientology. What you're describing is a proper non-sequitur, why would a government's utility inform its credibility as an arbiter of respectability?
      - grandalf 15y ago
        I think that a government's legitimacy as an arbiter of anything depends on its overall credibility, which varies greatly between governments and within the institutions within governments.
    - grandalf 15y ago
      Not at all. The people who work in some government jobs benefit me, while others harm me. Ironically, whenever anyone tries to defend government the first thing they mention is the roads, which are less than 1% of the budget and an even smaller percentage of personnel, and toward which the actual work is done by locally contracted private firms. Sure, there are a lot of coordination problems that government tries (with varying degrees of success) to solve, but this doesn't put it beyond reproach. And it's certainly the case that even the US government has a fairly high degree of corruption, much of which diverts resources away from those in need toward those with political connections. So in my view, governments derive legitimacy from their ability to solve coordination problems, adapt to changing circumstances, and stave off policies that incentivize corruption or put human rights at risk. In the case of figurehead monarchies and the hereditary titles they grant, I think the best that could be said is that they offer nostalgia for a past era when such things mattered. In reality, vane humans strive to show status by meeting with royalty, since in spite of the monarchy's utter backwardness and absurdity, is still not something everyone gets to do, so the scarcity of the opportunity creates social value. The reality of knighthoods past is that they were titles awarded to warlords in exchange for tributes (aka voluntary taxes) paid to a more powerful warlord (aka king) who granted privileges, land, etc., in exchange for those tributes. This still happens today only w/o the pageantry: Imagine a US military truck with crates full of cash paying Afghan warlords for intel and mercenary troops. This is ugly business and there is no honor whatsoever in it.
comice 15y ago
the only comment here anywhere near representative of my own views (and yeah, I'm British, yawn) has been down voted :/

FrankBooth 15y ago

The entire British government has no merit? Really?

grandalf 15y ago
One could make the same argument about the Church of Scientology. The knighthood is via the figurehead, monarchic part of the government which serves no actual purpose.
- tptacek 15y ago
  I'm guessing two things from this comment. (1) You are a computer programmer. (2) You are not British. Am I right about either of them? I hope so. I upvoted you in sympathy. :)
  - grandalf 15y ago
    You are correct. I have nothing against the British government or the Church of Scientology, but I do think titles of nobility are bizarre and a reminder of our civilization's dark past.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      Do they really differ from the titles we use in the USA? "Senator" Bush. "Mr. President" (every president past and present) "Sir" is no more a title of nobility (today) than any of those.
      - grandalf 15y ago
        You would have to be the biggest cynic in the world about democracy to think there is no difference between an elected senator and a monarchic (hereditary) title of nobility.
        ErrantX 15y ago
        FWIW KBE's are not hereditary titles :-) he can't pass it on. Here in the UK it is nowadays largely recognised as part of a larger (including OBE and MBE etc.) merit system recognising achievement. A national honour roll. Now if we were talking about hereditary lordships...
        megablast 15y ago
        It is almost as if you are trying not to understand, and just want to lash out at this, no matter what. Yes, it is a title, nothing more, nothing huge, almost completely meaningless.
        grandalf 15y ago
        That's my point, it' meaningless. That modern humans think it's a big deal is the scary part.
        sliverstorm 15y ago
        Yet you are the one sounding the war drums.
        grandalf 15y ago
        Just trying to correct for the very common pro government bias.
    - blurbytree 15y ago
      They are a fantastic way to honor people who have made a large contribution to society.

EToS 15y ago

Troll much?

grandalf 15y ago
It's not a troll. Why do governmental institutions deserve an ounce more (or less) credibility than non-governmental ones like the Gates Foundation or the Church of Scientology. We're all just in the habit of glorifying those who have power over us (or who once did) and treating nonsense like this as if it was a real honor. If you want to honor Ives, buy an Apple product.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Err... government props up your life as you know it. You drive on public roads. You engage in an entire economy stabilized by FDIC backing and various other tactics. You are kept safe by public employees- policemen, firemen, et al. Yet you say we should find government no more credible than Scientology?
  - Stratego 15y ago
    In defining who merits respect? You're damned right it is no more credible than Scientology. What you're describing is a proper non-sequitur, why would a government's utility inform its credibility as an arbiter of respectability?
    - grandalf 15y ago
      I think that a government's legitimacy as an arbiter of anything depends on its overall credibility, which varies greatly between governments and within the institutions within governments.
  - grandalf 15y ago
    Not at all. The people who work in some government jobs benefit me, while others harm me. Ironically, whenever anyone tries to defend government the first thing they mention is the roads, which are less than 1% of the budget and an even smaller percentage of personnel, and toward which the actual work is done by locally contracted private firms. Sure, there are a lot of coordination problems that government tries (with varying degrees of success) to solve, but this doesn't put it beyond reproach. And it's certainly the case that even the US government has a fairly high degree of corruption, much of which diverts resources away from those in need toward those with political connections. So in my view, governments derive legitimacy from their ability to solve coordination problems, adapt to changing circumstances, and stave off policies that incentivize corruption or put human rights at risk. In the case of figurehead monarchies and the hereditary titles they grant, I think the best that could be said is that they offer nostalgia for a past era when such things mattered. In reality, vane humans strive to show status by meeting with royalty, since in spite of the monarchy's utter backwardness and absurdity, is still not something everyone gets to do, so the scarcity of the opportunity creates social value. The reality of knighthoods past is that they were titles awarded to warlords in exchange for tributes (aka voluntary taxes) paid to a more powerful warlord (aka king) who granted privileges, land, etc., in exchange for those tributes. This still happens today only w/o the pageantry: Imagine a US military truck with crates full of cash paying Afghan warlords for intel and mercenary troops. This is ugly business and there is no honor whatsoever in it.

comice 15y ago

the only comment here anywhere near representative of my own views (and yeah, I'm British, yawn) has been down voted :/