The HoL only has 92 heredity peers out of some 800. Heredities were pretty much abolished over a decade ago.
Jackie Chan may or may not be right, that depends on externalities, such as the ability of young people, for example, to earn enough in their lifetime to buy a house. This is not possible in London, where house prices are many multiples (hundreds, even) of the average wage.
As for nation-state representation, well, in an ideal world we wouldn't have nation-states, and wouldn't need representing. But we're here now. And to my mind, one system may be as bad as another in terms of morality, but when it comes to functionality...well, Her Maj has seen presidents come and go for decades. She has fewer powers than any president, but strangely just as much influence, if not more: maybe due to continuity, but maybe for her obvious personal qualities.
I'm the sort of person who is of the opinion that if it ain't broke...
A decade ago! Well, ok, but still took till 2005. The blood you carry does not matter--we agree? Bloodlines are a piss poor way of handing down power.
"if it aint broke"
It is a broken model. There's a reason she was stripped of her power, right? Take it all the way, and bring yourselves one step closer to an egalitarian model of society. Why perpetuate a broken, antiquated, outdated, ineffective and blindly nepotistic model of government?
British monarchs have been constitutional since the civil war. Parliament is sovereign, and the monarchs have been figureheads who have rubber-stamped parliament's laws. Hence, the glorious revolution, the Hapsburg monarchy replacing the Stuarts, etc. It may not suit American mythology and the supposed horror of George III's reign, but it is still true. Her Maj hasn't been "stripped" of any power: she has never really had any. Neither have many of her forebears since Charlie 1. But she has had duties and has influence.
The dictatorship of parliament, like the dictatorship of any sovereign entity, can be objectionable. You chaps have an elected monarch with far more powers than our queen, and you don't really have a democratic electoral system, and your president almost always comes from an oligarchical upper-class, often from a family which has previously held tenure. I would hardly call your system egalitarian.
As is, your polity appears to be run by business. A corporatocracy, if you like. This is neither egalitarian, nor accountable: but it does appear to be the modern way.
Of the two systems, I know which one I prefer. You have your own preferences too. It's a diverse old world, isn't it?
Surely residing in the US doesn't mean I approve of our corporate fetishistic congress.
It's again, not about political power, but about political symbolism. There's nothing egalitarian in a figurehead queen.
Why not move towards egalitarianism? Monarchy, even figure-head monarchy, is a negative thing. They are anachronistic, and by no means a massive wrong in the worldwide fight for solidarity, fraternity and liberty, it is still a small injustice and it plagues me that so many people just find it so damned wonderful.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 09:31 am (UTC)Jackie Chan may or may not be right, that depends on externalities, such as the ability of young people, for example, to earn enough in their lifetime to buy a house. This is not possible in London, where house prices are many multiples (hundreds, even) of the average wage.
As for nation-state representation, well, in an ideal world we wouldn't have nation-states, and wouldn't need representing. But we're here now. And to my mind, one system may be as bad as another in terms of morality, but when it comes to functionality...well, Her Maj has seen presidents come and go for decades. She has fewer powers than any president, but strangely just as much influence, if not more: maybe due to continuity, but maybe for her obvious personal qualities.
I'm the sort of person who is of the opinion that if it ain't broke...
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 09:49 am (UTC)A decade ago! Well, ok, but still took till 2005. The blood you carry does not matter--we agree? Bloodlines are a piss poor way of handing down power.
"if it aint broke"
It is a broken model. There's a reason she was stripped of her power, right? Take it all the way, and bring yourselves one step closer to an egalitarian model of society. Why perpetuate a broken, antiquated, outdated, ineffective and blindly nepotistic model of government?
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 11:59 am (UTC)The dictatorship of parliament, like the dictatorship of any sovereign entity, can be objectionable. You chaps have an elected monarch with far more powers than our queen, and you don't really have a democratic electoral system, and your president almost always comes from an oligarchical upper-class, often from a family which has previously held tenure. I would hardly call your system egalitarian.
As is, your polity appears to be run by business. A corporatocracy, if you like. This is neither egalitarian, nor accountable: but it does appear to be the modern way.
Of the two systems, I know which one I prefer. You have your own preferences too. It's a diverse old world, isn't it?
no subject
Date: 2015-11-11 08:58 am (UTC)It's again, not about political power, but about political symbolism. There's nothing egalitarian in a figurehead queen.
Why not move towards egalitarianism? Monarchy, even figure-head monarchy, is a negative thing. They are anachronistic, and by no means a massive wrong in the worldwide fight for solidarity, fraternity and liberty, it is still a small injustice and it plagues me that so many people just find it so damned wonderful.