Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by fc417fc802 464 days ago
> Inheritance and monarchy does not make for a good government, and we know this.

Monarchy makes for some of both the best and worst governments on record. The problem isn't that you can't get good results, but rather the extreme variance.
2 comments
cyberax 463 days ago
> Monarchy makes for some of both the best and worst governments on record.

The best monarchs were the ones deposed by the revolutionaries, or the ones who abdicated the real power. There are 2 problems:

1. _Nobody_ should be ruling for more than 8-10 years.

2. You can't have a real monarchy without feudalism. And feudalism _always_ sucks.

link
quink 463 days ago
lol. I lived under the same monarch, QEII, who has ruled for seventy years, and I assure you that I and my compatriots feel far, far, freer in practice and guided more well than any single American ought to feel currently.
link
cyberax 463 days ago
The UK monarchs don't rule. They are for show only.
link
eszed 462 days ago
They don't have power, but they do have influence. Every Prime Minister has a weekly meeting with the... King (still hard to type that, isn't it?), an off-the-record discussion of what they're doing and thinking, with someone who (theoretically, at least) has the long view interests of the nation in mind. Most have said it's immensely valuable.

That apart, the "show" function is important, too. It separates the Head of State and Head of Government functions, which makes it easier to dismiss the Head of Government, without disturbing the stability of the State. The US system fuses the two, which (in my view) is part of what makes the Congress reluctant to follow through on impeachment. (To avoid recent examples: had Bill Clinton been (treated like) a British Prime Minister in 1998 he'd have lost a no-confidence vote among his own party, and Al Gore would have served out his term. I think that would have been a better outcome than what actually happened, and followed.)

link
quink 463 days ago
> or the ones who abdicated the real power

Missed that part in your parent reply originally, you're right of course, cheers :)

link
quink 463 days ago
Which can be mitigated by making the monarch powerless.

I’m in Australia and the Trump presidency will be the thing for the next century that we can point to and say that this is why we are not going to ever, ever, ever get rid of the king or queen, in favour of a local president. I suspect that Canada and other countries feel much the same.

link
etothepii 463 days ago
I agree that Monarchs are great if they realise their long term legacy is best served by doing very little-to-nothing but still bringing the Prime Minister to account once a week (the A/UK/CA/NZ evolutionary model). However, even the ceremonial power is proving problematic in a world where the government of UK wants King of UK to have Trump for tea and the government of CA wants King of CA to spit in it.
link