[alancalverd]

Ambition is irrelevant: succession by primogeniture is written in law. This makes "security" very simple and largely irrelevant - if the British King were assassinated or fell under a train, his successor would be automatically and immediately appointed. The succession to the British Throne is, AFAIK, already known down to at least the 200th in line and will only change if and when there is a birth or death somewhere in that group.
A constitutional monarch is not a leader. The job of titular head of the armed forces, for instance, does not confer the ability to declare war. Following a general election, the monarch invites the person most able to command a parliamentary majority to form a government "in my name". Immediately thereafter, the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition (note the title) swears allegiance to the Crown.  Leadership is vested in the House of Commons, not the monarch.
Everyone has the capacity to ruin the lives of one or two others, but nobody (apart from the Leader of the Conservative Party) has the right to screw things up for everybody.
A constitutional monarch, unlike the president of a banana republic like the USA, has no impunity: he is subject to the law and cannot pardon himself. The last one that tried it in the UK was decapitated pour decourager les autres.
Creating (and suppressing) dissatisfaction and unrest is the job of the Leader of the Conservative Party, not the King. If anything, the monarch's role is to warn the Prime Minister of the dissatisfaction and unrest she has caused.
 

[paul cotter]

An annoying habit of these philosophers is their use of latin and lately French phrases and idioms to put across their words of wisdom. I suppose we will just have to suffer it.

[alancalverd]

Il faut souffrir pour paraitre sage. I regret the disappearance of neat Latin phrases such as nem con and ipsi dixit from the legal lexicon (OK, book of useful words), and was slightly concerned by a recent misreading of a Latin grace before the outside work at a formal dinner: tradition is fun, pretentiousness is embarrassing. Reply if he pleases you, but beware of the spirit of the staircase.

[paul cotter]

Above all, don't get caught "in flagrante delicto ".( May not have spelt that correctly)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ambition is irrelevant: succession by primogeniture is written in law. This makes "security" very simple and largely irrelevant - if the British King were assassinated or fell under a train, his successor would be automatically and immediately appointed. The succession to the British Throne is, AFAIK, already known down to at least the 200th in line and will only change if and when there is a birth or death somewhere in that group.
A constitutional monarch is not a leader. The job of titular head of the armed forces, for instance, does not confer the ability to declare war. Following a general election, the monarch invites the person most able to command a parliamentary majority to form a government "in my name". Immediately thereafter, the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition (note the title) swears allegiance to the Crown.  Leadership is vested in the House of Commons, not the monarch.
Everyone has the capacity to ruin the lives of one or two others, but nobody (apart from the Leader of the Conservative Party) has the right to screw things up for everybody.
A constitutional monarch, unlike the president of a banana republic like the USA, has no impunity: he is subject to the law and cannot pardon himself. The last one that tried it in the UK was decapitated pour decourager les autres.
Creating (and suppressing) dissatisfaction and unrest is the job of the Leader of the Conservative Party, not the King. If anything, the monarch's role is to warn the Prime Minister of the dissatisfaction and unrest she has caused.
 

Does British monarchy represents all monarchies in the world? Or is it just an exception instead?

[alancalverd]

Constitutional monarchies are all pretty much the same.

I remarked on seeing a rather comfortable office in the Stockholm central barracks, with a bicycle rack outside. My Swedish colleague said "the King cycles in three days a week to sign the orders for the army - that's the job of a king."   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Constitutional monarchies are all pretty much the same.

I remarked on seeing a rather comfortable office in the Stockholm central barracks, with a bicycle rack outside. My Swedish colleague said "the King cycles in three days a week to sign the orders for the army - that's the job of a king."   

What prevents a king from writing down the Constitution by himself, like Hammurabi did?

[alancalverd]

Parliament. And in the UK, the threat of decapitation, or at least the loss of public funds and police protection. For instance, Buckingham Palace is owned by Crown Estates, a civil service department - it is the London office, not the property, of  the Head of State - so the monarch could be evicted. 

Actually, things work better in the UK because we don't have much of a written constitution. Parliament decides what constitutes a crime so you don't need the protection of constitutional rights, and apart from paying taxes and serving on a jury, citizens have very few duties.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

the threat of decapitation, or at least the loss of public funds and police protection.

It's good for them to have learned how to survive as a monarch from history.

[alancalverd]

It was very well done in the UK, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belgium. After period in which the relevant republic descended into the inevitable corruption and chaos, parliament reinstated a hereditary monarchy and civilisation. Other civilised states such as Canada and Australia sensibly continue to use the British monarch as head of state without having to go through the acrimony and bloodshed of a civil war or suffer the national disgrace of a US presidency where the choice is between a criminal and an idiot.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Currently practiced democracies aren't perfect either. Political donations can lead to corruption and oligarchy when not adequately regulated. Major policy makers can get illegitimate financial gain through insider trading.
They have no incentive to change the current policies which benefit them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In this video, a Universal Basic Services is proposed, instead of Universal Basic Income.

The point being made here is, resources should be used to maximize the likelihood that the society will be sustainable. Society members won't be able to contribute to the society when their basic needs aren't fulfilled. They can even bring negative impacts instead, like striking and causing chaos.

[alancalverd]

Currently practiced democracies aren't perfect either. Political donations can lead to corruption and oligarchy when not adequately regulated. Major policy makers can get illegitimate financial gain through insider trading.
They have no incentive to change the current policies which benefit them.

Yeah, people stink. Always and everywhere. At least a democracy gives you the opportunity to complain.

[alancalverd]

In this video, a Universal Basic Services is proposed, instead of Universal Basic Income.

The point being made here is, resources should be used to maximize the likelihood that the society will be sustainable. Society members won't be able to contribute to the society when their basic needs aren't fulfilled. They can even bring negative impacts instead, like striking and causing chaos.

UBS is the foundation of communism, which hasn't fared well in lab tests: it hasn't delivered sustainability and in practice turns out to be just as corrupt as capitalism but less competent.

If your needs will be met, why get out of bed? So everyone must be compelled to work. By whom, and how hard? Difficult to distinguish from slavery. And who determines what needs to be done?  A command economy relies on a degree of administrative foresight that has never been shown to exist.  Capitalist undertakings fail, but not all at once.

[alancalverd]

the national disgrace of a US presidency where the choice is between a criminal and an idiot.

Great news! It seems that the next US presidential contest will be between two criminal idiots, so it doesn't matter who you vote for. Now that is pure constitutional genius. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If your needs will be met, why get out of bed?

If your needs weren't met, how can you get out of bed?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

UBS is the foundation of communism, which hasn't fared well in lab tests: it hasn't delivered sustainability and in practice turns out to be just as corrupt as capitalism but less competent.

If something fails, first identify the root cause. Then find out the possible solutions, and analyze their side effects. Choose the best available solutions, and find ways to monitor their effectiveness.

[alancalverd]

If your needs weren't met, how can you get out of bed?

At an early age, your needs are met by your parents, and you gradually transition to earning money or learning to hunt for yourself, until you have earned enough personal or social capital to spend more time in bed. The guarantee of universal basic services presumes that (a) someone will provide them and either (b) he has no need to do so as his needs will be met anyway or (c) there is a slave underclass who will provide them whether they like it or not.

[alancalverd]

UBS is the foundation of communism, which hasn't fared well in lab tests: it hasn't delivered sustainability and in practice turns out to be just as corrupt as capitalism but less competent.

If something fails, first identify the root cause. Then find out the possible solutions, and analyze their side effects. Choose the best available solutions, and find ways to monitor their effectiveness.

Root cause: parasites. Politicians who can command without having to suffer the consequences, philosophers (more specifically, economists) who think they have a Perfect System that does not need to respond to changing circumstances, and priests (including the media) who tell you that it will be OK  in the afterlife if it doesn't work out next year.

Solution: kill the parasites and replace "government" with "public service".

[paul cotter]

I fear you are both way too idealistic concerning an improved system of government. Even if the best possible system was instituted it would become corrupted over time by greed, which is a basic human attribute which can never be discounted. Without greed, however, I believe we would still be living in mud huts, so it is not necessarily a bad thing. Just look through history, all the better systems eventually went down the pan.