3 ms·

A question for monarchists: Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." How do you square your support for kings when it goes

A question for monarchists: Article 1: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." How do you square your support for kings when it goes a fundamental human right, that all human beings are born equal in dignity and rights?

ImJamal 3y ago
I'll take a stab at this. Having equal rights doesn't mean that everybody has equal say in laws. Basically what I mean is a person in a legislature can vote for a bill to become a law. I, not being a member of a legislature, can't vote for the bill. That doesn't mean I don't have equal rights to the politician. On a side note, a large number of kings have no or nearly no power nowadays so it tends to be more of a symbolic thing
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  When I was born, I had the same right as everyone else born that day to become a MP. There was nothing in the laws of my country saying: this child can not be an MP because it was born in the wrong family. The poorest child born that day and richest child have the same rights (so much as the law is concerned). A royal child, though, has, by law (by law!), many more rights than me, chief among them being ascending to a position of power because it was born in the right family.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    I’m not a monarchist, but couldn’t you say the same thing about people born in other countries to yours? (eg: that they have fewer rights in your country than you)
  - ImJamal 3y ago
    >When I was born, I had the same right as everyone else born that day to become a MP. Is there a monarchical country that doesn't allow the monarch to choose an heir that is not their child? Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean it can't happen. It is quite unlikely you become a politician as well. >There was nothing in the laws of my country saying: this child can not be an MP because it was born in the wrong family >A royal child, though, has, by law (by law!), many more rights than me, chief among them being ascending to a position of power because it was born in the right family I don't know about MPs but various countries require the president to have a parent that is already a citizen or requires them to have been born in that country. Doesn't really seem any different. Being born in the right place or in the right family is required to have certain roles in society in democratic societies as well. If we were to take your argument to the logical conclusion it is a human rights violation that we don't allow some poor person in Timbuktu to become the prime minister of Spain. Why should he have his rights violated just because he was born to a family who just so happened to be in another country?
  - dudul 3y ago
    Is "able to become PM/king/whatever" a right though? Maybe i have a simplistic view but a right is something that cannot be denied. Do I have the right to become a NBA player? IMO people are too quick nowadays in calling everything "a right".
goodSteveramos 3y ago
Do people in Western countries who call themselves “monarchists” really judge their own beliefs by definitions invented by liberals? I’m not familiar with anyone who calls themselves that so I’m all ears.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  Modern monarchism is a branch of liberalism.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
What part is in conflict? Do you see any fundamental difference in freedoms, dignity, or rights given to each? Both Kings and citizens have the right to own property. They just differ in the property they own.
- sillystuff 3y ago
  And, the law, in its majestic equality, forbids kings and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. (apologies to Anatole France)
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Indeed, but that isn't a robust argument that the laws aren't the same.
skissane 3y ago
I live in Australia. The King of Australia is essentially a symbolic figurehead with no real power – he doesn't even live here. As such, how does that symbolic role, in itself, imply that some humans are not "born free" or are not "equal in dignity and rights"? In principle, I'd support replacing the monarchy with a Republic – although, like in the 1999 referendum (which I was too young to vote in), I might vote "No" to a republic if I disagreed with the details of the specific Republic on offer. But, either way, I don't think this has much to do with human rights. Obviously we aren't all "born equal" in a factual sense – a person born to wealthy parents gets a head start in life which a person born to parents of modest means lacks – but few would argue that such inequalities, in themselves, necessarily violate human rights. The equality it is talking about here is an abstract legal equality. And, to be honest, I'm sceptical that the inheritance of the office of a symbolic figurehead head of state, which only remains in existence due to the support or apathy of voters, actually violates that abstract legal equality, any more than the obvious inequality between a billionaire's child and a welfare recipient's child does.
- pyuser583 3y ago
  I’ve heard that Australia (or it’s Constitution) rejects the idea of human rights entirely. Instead it focuses on good government and democratic accountability. No bill of rights, but mandatory elections. Is that true? Does that distinction have much meaning?
  - skissane 3y ago
    Australia's constitution doesn't have a Bill of Rights, yes. They tried to introduce one in 1988, but it failed in a referendum [0] However, it isn't true that it contains no individual rights. Expressly, it grants three federal rights (meaning they don't bind the states, only the federal government): religious freedom, trial by jury, and compensation on just terms in cases of expropriation / eminent domain. It also expressly grants two rights which do bind both state and federally: right to interstate free trade, and prohibition of discrimination based on state of residence. Furthermore, the High Court of Australia has read certain rights as "implicit" in its text, most famously the "implied right to political communication", which is a weaker version of the US First Amendment (since it only applies in political matters, not purely artistic expression). It also ruled that bills of attainder are unconstitutional – not on the grounds of individual rights, rather because they violate the separation of powers doctrine (determining the guilt of individuals is the exclusive competence of the judiciary, not the legislature). So it isn't true that the Australian constitution has zero protection for individual rights. It is true that those protections are much weaker than under the US federal constitution. However, there are also non-constitutional protections for human rights. For example, Australia has banned the death penalty nationwide. States cannot legally reintroduce it even if they wanted to. This is because Australia ratified an international treaty banning the death penalty (Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR). And then there is a provision in the Australian constitution which permits federal legislation to enforce a treaty, and so the Australian Parliament used that to ban the states from having a death penalty–at the time of the federal ban, they'd all already repealed it anyway. It isn't constitutionally entrenched – there is nothing legally stopping a future federal Parliament from repealing that law - although in practice that seems very unlikely. So one could argue this is a case in which Australian law gives people more rights than US law does (the right not to be executed). Another example is when, in 1994, the federal Parliament legalised homosexuality nationwide, overturning the state of Tasmania's criminalisation of it. This was also done under the treaty / external relations power, in response to a UN Human Rights Committee decision that Tasmania's criminalisation of it violated the ICCPR [1]. The same procedure means the federal Parliament can enforce any other future decisions by human rights treaty bodies against the states – if there is political will to do so. Also, just like the US, state laws and constitutions can grant you additional rights on top of the federal ones. For example, the state of Victoria has a human rights charter [2] although that is not part of the state constitution, just ordinary legislation; and it does not grant courts power to strike down legislation, but it does say courts must interpret other legislation (wherever possible) to make it compatible with the charter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum_(Rights_and_Freedoms) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum_(Ri... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toonen_v._Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toonen_v._Australia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Human_Rights_and_Responsibilities_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Human_Rights_and_Re...
pyuser583 3y ago
I reject a strict reading of abstract rights. One of the most appealing parts of monarchism is how it encourages practical compromises. There’s no need to create a deep theoretical basis for policy decisions. That includes human rights laws.

ImJamal 3y ago

I'll take a stab at this. Having equal rights doesn't mean that everybody has equal say in laws. Basically what I mean is a person in a legislature can vote for a bill to become a law. I, not being a member of a legislature, can't vote for the bill. That doesn't mean I don't have equal rights to the politician. On a side note, a large number of kings have no or nearly no power nowadays so it tends to be more of a symbolic thing

GeoAtreides 3y ago
When I was born, I had the same right as everyone else born that day to become a MP. There was nothing in the laws of my country saying: this child can not be an MP because it was born in the wrong family. The poorest child born that day and richest child have the same rights (so much as the law is concerned). A royal child, though, has, by law (by law!), many more rights than me, chief among them being ascending to a position of power because it was born in the right family.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  I’m not a monarchist, but couldn’t you say the same thing about people born in other countries to yours? (eg: that they have fewer rights in your country than you)
- ImJamal 3y ago
  >When I was born, I had the same right as everyone else born that day to become a MP. Is there a monarchical country that doesn't allow the monarch to choose an heir that is not their child? Just because something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean it can't happen. It is quite unlikely you become a politician as well. >There was nothing in the laws of my country saying: this child can not be an MP because it was born in the wrong family >A royal child, though, has, by law (by law!), many more rights than me, chief among them being ascending to a position of power because it was born in the right family I don't know about MPs but various countries require the president to have a parent that is already a citizen or requires them to have been born in that country. Doesn't really seem any different. Being born in the right place or in the right family is required to have certain roles in society in democratic societies as well. If we were to take your argument to the logical conclusion it is a human rights violation that we don't allow some poor person in Timbuktu to become the prime minister of Spain. Why should he have his rights violated just because he was born to a family who just so happened to be in another country?
- dudul 3y ago
  Is "able to become PM/king/whatever" a right though? Maybe i have a simplistic view but a right is something that cannot be denied. Do I have the right to become a NBA player? IMO people are too quick nowadays in calling everything "a right".

goodSteveramos 3y ago

Do people in Western countries who call themselves “monarchists” really judge their own beliefs by definitions invented by liberals? I’m not familiar with anyone who calls themselves that so I’m all ears.

pyuser583 3y ago
Modern monarchism is a branch of liberalism.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

What part is in conflict? Do you see any fundamental difference in freedoms, dignity, or rights given to each? Both Kings and citizens have the right to own property. They just differ in the property they own.

sillystuff 3y ago
And, the law, in its majestic equality, forbids kings and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. (apologies to Anatole France)
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Indeed, but that isn't a robust argument that the laws aren't the same.

skissane 3y ago

I live in Australia. The King of Australia is essentially a symbolic figurehead with no real power – he doesn't even live here. As such, how does that symbolic role, in itself, imply that some humans are not "born free" or are not "equal in dignity and rights"? In principle, I'd support replacing the monarchy with a Republic – although, like in the 1999 referendum (which I was too young to vote in), I might vote "No" to a republic if I disagreed with the details of the specific Republic on offer. But, either way, I don't think this has much to do with human rights. Obviously we aren't all "born equal" in a factual sense – a person born to wealthy parents gets a head start in life which a person born to parents of modest means lacks – but few would argue that such inequalities, in themselves, necessarily violate human rights. The equality it is talking about here is an abstract legal equality. And, to be honest, I'm sceptical that the inheritance of the office of a symbolic figurehead head of state, which only remains in existence due to the support or apathy of voters, actually violates that abstract legal equality, any more than the obvious inequality between a billionaire's child and a welfare recipient's child does.

pyuser583 3y ago
I’ve heard that Australia (or it’s Constitution) rejects the idea of human rights entirely. Instead it focuses on good government and democratic accountability. No bill of rights, but mandatory elections. Is that true? Does that distinction have much meaning?
- skissane 3y ago
  Australia's constitution doesn't have a Bill of Rights, yes. They tried to introduce one in 1988, but it failed in a referendum [0] However, it isn't true that it contains no individual rights. Expressly, it grants three federal rights (meaning they don't bind the states, only the federal government): religious freedom, trial by jury, and compensation on just terms in cases of expropriation / eminent domain. It also expressly grants two rights which do bind both state and federally: right to interstate free trade, and prohibition of discrimination based on state of residence. Furthermore, the High Court of Australia has read certain rights as "implicit" in its text, most famously the "implied right to political communication", which is a weaker version of the US First Amendment (since it only applies in political matters, not purely artistic expression). It also ruled that bills of attainder are unconstitutional – not on the grounds of individual rights, rather because they violate the separation of powers doctrine (determining the guilt of individuals is the exclusive competence of the judiciary, not the legislature). So it isn't true that the Australian constitution has zero protection for individual rights. It is true that those protections are much weaker than under the US federal constitution. However, there are also non-constitutional protections for human rights. For example, Australia has banned the death penalty nationwide. States cannot legally reintroduce it even if they wanted to. This is because Australia ratified an international treaty banning the death penalty (Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR). And then there is a provision in the Australian constitution which permits federal legislation to enforce a treaty, and so the Australian Parliament used that to ban the states from having a death penalty–at the time of the federal ban, they'd all already repealed it anyway. It isn't constitutionally entrenched – there is nothing legally stopping a future federal Parliament from repealing that law - although in practice that seems very unlikely. So one could argue this is a case in which Australian law gives people more rights than US law does (the right not to be executed). Another example is when, in 1994, the federal Parliament legalised homosexuality nationwide, overturning the state of Tasmania's criminalisation of it. This was also done under the treaty / external relations power, in response to a UN Human Rights Committee decision that Tasmania's criminalisation of it violated the ICCPR [1]. The same procedure means the federal Parliament can enforce any other future decisions by human rights treaty bodies against the states – if there is political will to do so. Also, just like the US, state laws and constitutions can grant you additional rights on top of the federal ones. For example, the state of Victoria has a human rights charter [2] although that is not part of the state constitution, just ordinary legislation; and it does not grant courts power to strike down legislation, but it does say courts must interpret other legislation (wherever possible) to make it compatible with the charter. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum_(Rights_and_Freedoms) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum_(Ri... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toonen_v._Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toonen_v._Australia [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Human_Rights_and_Responsibilities_Act_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Human_Rights_and_Re...

pyuser583 3y ago

I reject a strict reading of abstract rights. One of the most appealing parts of monarchism is how it encourages practical compromises. There’s no need to create a deep theoretical basis for policy decisions. That includes human rights laws.