In a new book, Policing the Open Road, How Cars Transformed American Freedom http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674980860 the author makes the claim that the USA's slippery slope toward a totalitarian or police state (often discussed on SN) started when cars became popular. Before that time (about 100 years ago), most policing was handled by various non-gov't organizations and the professional police force was small. With the advent of the car, everyone (rich and poor, upstanding citizen or rogue) broke traffic laws and police forces expanded to deal with it--testing constitutional rights in the courts and many other aspects of our society.
The Boston Review http://bostonreview.net/law-justice/sarah-seo-how-cars-transformed-policing has a extended book review which is well worth a read. Here's a clip:
Before cars, police mainly dealt with those on the margins of society. Voluntary associations governed everyone else. Churches enforced moral norms, trade groups managed business relations, and social clubs maintained social harmony. Citizens and private groups, including banks and insurance companies, pursued criminal investigations and initiated prosecutions. Aside from the constable or sheriff, who worked for the court and mainly executed warrants, publicly-funded police rarely took part in private enforcement efforts. A nineteenth-century treatise on the “duties of sheriffs and constables” indicates that the bulk of their work was to serve summonses, warrants, and writs, as well as to supervise prisoners. Large cities began establishing police forces in the mid-nineteenth century, but even so, municipal coffers did not support the extent of protection that wealthier neighborhoods and business districts sought. A system of “special policemen” licensed by the government but paid for by private citizens—private security, essentially—filled the void.
This would all soon change when Americans embraced the “horseless carriage.” In 1910 the number of registered passenger cars was just under 500,000. That figure exploded to over 8 million in 1920 and to nearly 18 million in 1925—a thirty-fivefold increase in fifteen years. New regulatory and police practices soon developed to respond to cars’ mass adoption. Soon no one could drive without taking a test, applying for a license, registering the car, and buying insurance. And that was just the beginning. Once a person set out for a drive, speed limits, stoplights, checkpoints, and all the other requirements of the traffic code restricted how one could drive.
But towns and cities quickly ran into an enforcement problem: everybody violated traffic laws. Noncompliance was not a new phenomenon, but violations of the rules of the road presented a different quandary for two reasons. First, drivers included respectable people, and their numbers were growing every year. Second, traffic lawbreaking resulted in tremendous damage, injury, and death, and those numbers were increasing every day. It soon became clear that the public’s interest in street and highway safety required more policing.
This meant that everyone became subject to discretionary policing. The well-off were among the first to buy cars, as were farmers who needed cars for more practical reasons. Even if independent farmers may not have been as wealthy as the early auto enthusiasts, as a group, they enjoyed social standing in a country with a strong sense of agrarian virtue. Driving quickly became a middle-class, or what used to be called “business-class,” phenomenon by the mid-1920s, when car ownership passed a tipping point: 55.7 percent of families in the United States owned a car in 1926, and 18 percent of those had more than one. But even the rest of the population who did not drive and instead walked were policed, too, for the regulation of drivers on public streets also required the regulation of pedestrians on those same streets.
This completely transformed U.S. society. ...
So much for that fantasy of the open road!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @01:05PM (21 children)
I wonder if it makes the distinction between "rights" and "privileges". Much of the problem with driving is, you have no "right" to operate a motor vehicle on any road that you don't personally own. You need a license to operate on public roads, with the caveat that if you don't obey the traffic laws, your license may be suspended. Violation of those laws is almost never a criminal offense, but an administrative offense.
Those distinctions probably didn't seem of much importance a hundred years ago. Aside from offenses like "driving while black", the worst abuses didn't become apparent until - ohhhh - maybe 40 years ago. Today, there are many meaningless "offenses" that no sensible person would have taken seriously 50 years ago. Tinted windows, seat belt laws, vehicle height, on and on it goes.
Given all of that - how are self-driving cars going to affect policing? We have to make a couple of presumptions - like the cars will obey the speed limit, they won't weave like they're drunk, and they will use signals and high/low beams appropriately at all times. So, cops should (almost) never have a reason to pull a vehicle over, right? So, we should all tint our windows almost opaque, light a blunt, pour our favorite drinks, and the hell with the seat belts, right? LOL, we all know better. The authorities aren't going to let go of any authorities they have assumed, or presumed!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @01:48PM (2 children)
I wonder if this book is doing the classic correlation-causation thing without considering whether a third factor didn't cause both. Police cause cars? No, doesn't make sense. Cars cause police? Doubtful because as you put it:
It's about power and control, not social necessity.
Asked the duck and found May Day: A Radical Strike into the Belly of the Beast [libcom.org], which touches on the Haymarket Massacre in 1886. Primary sauce [libcom.org] implicated virtuous Christians:
Not sure how many cars were around in 1886 or why we should be nostalgic for the good old days when "churches enforced moral norms."
It might be a case of their cool story being right for the wrong reasons. There may not be many privately-owned cars in the socialist era, probably only enthusiasts and hobbyists, sort of like the protagonist in A Nice Morning Drive [2112.net] (note that capitalist era causes the alloy air-cars, because if safety were the concern, the authorities would have spent more on public transportation instead) or Tom Paris from ST:VOY. There also will be no army of the bourgeoisie.
But I'm guessing the conclusion of the book is that we need to go all cargo cult and get rid of cars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @02:40PM
Also found The Danger of Getting Sidetracked [consortiumnews.com]. Does this book sidetrack us?
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday July 01 2019, @01:13AM
A bigger factor might have been how large the private police forces were becoming towards the end of the 19th century. The Pinkerton's by themselves were bigger then the American Army.
The Pinkerton Detective Agency was created to keep workers in line, from wiki,
And went on to do government work, which eventually worried the government, which passed the Anti-Pinkerton Act in 1893.
The Pinkerton's and other private police/mercennary forces are a good lesson on how private can be worse then public though they did employ women and minorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_agency) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 30 2019, @02:48PM (10 children)
>vehicle height
is a pretty serious safety concern on the public roads. Hiked up trucks are not only dangerous to normal height vehicles and their passengers, they also physically impair (the usually already intellectually impaired) their drivers' ability to see vehicles and pedestrians in danger from their vehicle.
Source: asshole in a hiked up truck nearly ran over a kid in the dropoff circle at elementary school, because he couldn't see that there was a kid in front of the truck.
Of course, the latest Ford Power Wagons or whatever the hell they're called come like this from the factory now, so I guess it's all O.K. with the NTSB.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:23PM (8 children)
Maybe vehicle height wasn't the best choice to make my point. However, not all laws regarding vehicle height are equally sensible. Maybe I should have used wheel size (which in some cases drastically affects vehicle height). Should the kids who buy 20 or 24 inch rims, with a thin skin of tire wrapped around them be stopped and arrested?
Power wagon? I thought that was a Mopar name - lemme look for it. https://2020suvs.com/2019-ram-power-wagon/ [2020suvs.com] I'm not sure what truck you're talking about, but the Power Wagon doesn't look very high. The wheels look like about 16" - the steps are probably positioned between 9 and 12 inches off the ground, and the front bumper looks about even with the steps.
I'm afraid you'll have to find a link to the truck you're talking about, before I can understand.
I will note, though, that one of my sons has a Dodge that I don't like. 3/4 ton pickup, with some really piss-poor styling. That huuuuuge hood makes the truck feel like it's 8 feet (or more) in width, and the ground immediately in front of the truck is hidden for several feet ahead. I've driven tractor trailers with better visibility. All of the class-8 truck manufacturers offer their trucks with sloping hoods, narrowed at the front - what we used to call "anteaters". Even the more traditional long nose Peterbilts and Western Stars don't seem to obstruct the view as much as the kid's Dodge.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:42PM (5 children)
This is the disturbing trend I'm referring to. Customizers accomplished this with lift kits for time immemorial, but now they're coming from the factory like: https://shop.ford.com/build/superduty/?intcmp=show-bp#/config/Config%5B%7CFord%7CSuperDuty%7C2019%7C1%7C1.%7C600A.F2A.142....250.CBC.REC.YZKAA.SRW.XLL.%5D [ford.com]
which aren't quite as bad, but definitely heading in that direction. At least the factory height bumpers aren't at decapitation levels, but as you say, the near front visibility is turning to shit. It's a continuation of the "I like to see OVER the other traffic" trend that launched the SUV wave.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:25PM (1 child)
> It's a continuation of the "I like to see OVER the other traffic" trend that launched the SUV wave.
Pretty sure that what launched the SUV and pickup wave was the Feds -- when safety, emission and fuel (CAFE) regulations were getting going (1980s?), they gave trucks an easier time, with the result that trucks were considerably cheaper. Probably (in some cases) the trucks ran better too, as the companies tried to figure out how to meet the more stringent emission and economy rules for cars. So people bought trucks and initially put up with the lousy ride and cheap interiors.
The manufacturers noticed that trucks were being used like cars, and they responded by making the trucks more car-like in terms of amenities.
The rules also made for some odd calls, for example, Chrysler managed to get the PT Cruiser classified as a truck, which meant it helped their CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) rating more than if it was a car.
As the height of the "fleet" increased, then the need to see OVER the other traffic became more of an issue.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:41PM
The impetus for SUV's started with the 1979 oil embargo. So, yes, you've nailed it with CAFE and your (1980s?) question.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:37PM (2 children)
I've seen the Super Duty Fords. I would have to sit in the driver's seat for a minute, or better yet drive it, to pass judgement. From the view offered on that page, it doesn't look bad. The hood actually slopes downward steadily, from the windshield, all the way to the front. Even better, the outer sides of the hood slope away even faster than the center. The guys with tiny dicks who put 3" or bigger lift kits under that truck are going to obstruct their views pretty badly - but the factory pic I'm seeing shouldn't be bad. The 350 Super Duty is all around larger, and higher, so it's going to be worse than the 250. I can agree with you, this is not a family car, and it probably shouldn't be found at the local elementary school, picking up children. Most certainly, not driven by people less than 5' 6". 6' 6" maybe. A child 4 feet tall will most certainly be hidden in front of that hood, unless the child is more than six feet out in front of the vehicle, unless the driver's eyeballs are up near the roof of the truck.
Most people who have a legitimate use for a vehicle like that are going to avoid downtown, school zones, church zones, etc. You'll find those people on the ranch, on a construction site, hauling cargo down the highway, OR, at the Cowboy Church.
Pretty cool place, about four miles outside of town. They have about five acres, maybe a little more, with a huge barn-like structure they use for a church. There's a big corral, I'd guess a hundred fifty people on horseback could gather up inside it. Those people show up in this sort of truck, pulling combined horse trailer/campers. I'll eyeball the horses, but the fascinating part of their get-togethers are those trailers. I'd love to tour some of those campers!
I've never seen a gang of kids running around in that church yard though . . .
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Sunday June 30 2019, @08:12PM (1 child)
>Most people who have a legitimate use for a vehicle like that are going to avoid downtown, school zones, church zones, etc.
Quite possibly.
The real question though, is do the majority of people who own such a vehicle have a legitimate use for it, or just enjoy the size, styling, or feeling of power and utility?
I know an awful lot of people who have powerful "commerical grade" pickups who *might* have a legitimate use for a light-duty pickup or SUV, but would probably actually be better served by a hatchback or station wagon, perhaps supplemented with a light-duty trailer that they use every few months.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @08:42PM
Quite honestly, I think that all of those Super Duty trucks I've seen are being legitimately used in business. They all seem to have commercial plates, or farm plates on them. I can't swear to that, but from memory, I just don't recall seeing those trucks driven by kids, or loaded with kids. The Super Duty and similar trucks built by the competitors cost more to purchase, and cost more to license. Insurance is probably priced higher as well. And, face it, these larger vehicles are going to drink more fuel.
Come one step down from these commercial grade trucks, and you're in the niche where you find most of the tiny penis people. What we used to call a "heavy half ton" is the truck most commonly jacked up three feet, rolling coal, four foot high mud tires, four wheel drive, and all the other crazy stuff insecure people need.
The only solid complaint I have with visibility in a factory vehicle, is with Dodge. Even back in the '70's, Dodge had that big, sweeping hood that just filled up your view from the driver's seat. At some point in time, that hood was restyled ever so slightly, and visibility improved. Then, they made that newest hood, with the faux air scoop that looks like it belongs on a ram-charger. I say it sucks, but Dodge fans seem to love it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:50PM
I think he means the Wagon Queen Family Truckster
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @10:31PM
If past experience is any guide, not holding my breath!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:14PM
> ... with the NTSB.
with the DOT/NHTSA, and any state/local regulations.
ftfy
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 30 2019, @02:52PM
>how are self-driving cars going to affect policing?
Give the police more time to profile and invent fines for other "violations."
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:12PM (5 children)
This is actually a common misconception, legally speaking. In a state governed by the rule of law, there are actually no such things as "privileges".
Owning a drivers license is obviously not a right, because then nobody would be legally allowed to take it away from you, under any circumstance and for any reason whatsoever. Heck, any kind of license wouldn't even be necessary for driving a vehicule on public roads.
On the onther hand, it is also not a privilege. A privilege is a "permission" that is granted to you by a superior authority, at its discretion. If owning a drivers license were a privilege, then the motor vehicule authority would be legally allowed to take it away from you at any time, for any reason whatsoever, and even without any reason at all. But they can't. If you obey all the rules and meet all the required conditions enumerated in the law, the motor vehicule authority are not only legally forbiden from taking away your license, they are legally obligated to grant you one.
The rule of law is actually something that is greatly misundertood by a large percentage of the population, which is very sad. In a state governed by the rule of law, citizens are not obligated to obey the governement, nor is the governement obligated to obey its citizens; by the rule of law, both the citizens and the governement are obligated to obey the law. This is the fundamental principle on which free democratic nations are built.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:30PM (2 children)
You've mostly got the "privileges" down, but you miss a key factor. Yes, you may be stripped of your privileges. It happens all the time in the military. Privileges are granted based upon rank, and/or position. And, you may be stripped of rank and/or position, with cause. At which point, you lose all of the privileges associated with that rank and/or position. Privileges, such as use of the Acey-Deucey lounge, use of the Petty Officer's club, or the Chief's club, membership in a private mess, keeping personal firearms aboard ship, or on base - on and on it goes. Privileges are generally taken away as a result of some misconduct, which is the case in revocation of a driver's license. As you have pointed out, that misconduct leading to revocation of a driver's license is also a violation of the law.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @09:01PM (1 child)
I think we're disagreing on semantics here. The examples of "privileges" you give, I call "conditional rights".
And example of what I call "privilege" would be a landowner giving you permission to hunt on his property. In my book, this is truly a privilege he's giving you, because at any moment, and for any reason, or no reason at all, he can take away this permission.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @12:46PM
So, like the typical social network TOS?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:44PM (1 child)
Just like spelling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @09:03PM
Not all posters on this board are native english speakers.
How many languages do you speak ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @02:18PM (2 children)
In Anglo-Saxon culture, there exists a class of bandits called highwaymen. Why?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:32PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFkcAH-m9W0 [youtube.com]
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Kell on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:22PM
Yes, they were outlaws who would rob travelers along highways - much like others would rob possessions in townships (thieves, larcens), or on ships (pirates), or livestock (rustlers) or other more specialised pursuits of robbery.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 30 2019, @02:44PM (10 children)
My grandmother, born in 1915, learned to drive in her late teens in nowhere Tennessee, in a car with no brakes. There were no license requirements for many years in her part of the world for many years after she learned to drive. Oh, and what do you do with no brakes when you're coming to a stop sign and there's traffic on the crossroad? Apparently, turn early and make a loop through the field, hope the intersection is clear on your next approach. Small town, everybody knows her car has no brakes, they're used to it.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:56PM (7 children)
What happened when she was going down a long hill? Throw out an anchor?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:37PM (6 children)
Engage low gear before you get to the hill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @07:16PM (5 children)
And when you get to the bottom? Hope nobody is there?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @10:46PM (4 children)
Back home on the farm, we had a farm truck, and the brakes went out. Called the owner in Vegas, and he said we couldn't afford the parts to fix it, so we just drove it like that. Not on public roads, so not a lot of traffic, and you just had to prepare in advance for things, using the engine to slow down, and turning it off to come to a stop. The anchor didn't work, 'cause it'd just catch on something, and break the line or tear off whatever it was attached to.
Then the clutch went out. Call to Vegas. Owner on a losing streak. So we just drove it like that. Put truck in "granny", crank the starter, and we're off. Sychro-shift as needed. Downshifting was a bit more difficult, requiring more anticipation. Finally, a situation came up where I forgot about the no-clutch/no-brakes thing, and tried to make a turn. Slowed truck down by skidding sideways and putting it into a ditch to bring it to a stop.
So, it can be done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @12:39AM (3 children)
Can be done, not should. In a field and not on public roads. OP made the claim that his grandmother drove on public roads (with stop signs even) in a vehicle that was unsafe even under conditions of the time. Personally, I think you would have to be crazy to continue to drive a vehicle in that condition. He claims the neighbors knew of the problem and ignored it. I cannot imagine that they did not pay granny a visit to straighten her out for their own self preservation or that one of the townies wouldn't have tried to fix it for her. TN hill folk are usually pretty tight knit and tend to take care of their own. Either Granny was exaggerating or OP was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @02:16PM (2 children)
he also said it was 1915, cars where just beginning to be available back then
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @05:04PM (1 child)
Brakes weren't standard equipment in 1915. Hell, brakes didn't make it to Tennessee until after the 1964 Voting Rights and Mandatory Brakes Act.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @12:08AM
Learn to read. She was BORN in 1915 and learned to drive in her late teens. And there were handbrakes on Conestoga wagons. The handbrake was standard equipment on the Model T Ford 1908-1927.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday July 01 2019, @12:50AM (1 child)
Perhaps a Model T? It was common to use reverse (planetary gears) for braking as the brakes were crap and often broke.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday July 01 2019, @02:47AM
Not sure, but I did get the impression that the car wasn't quite a universal tool the way they are today - it ran a couple of specific routes between the farm and town and that was about it. As I said earlier, everybody knew all about everybody else there, so when they saw/heard it coming, they knew what to expect. Never heard any stories about a crash or injury from that - there might have been a total of 6 cars in town at the time this one was running with no brakes, and after a year or so they finally had the money to do something about it - but, no sense in not using an otherwise nifty new car instead of the horse, particularly when the horse had other uses like plowing the field.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 5, Interesting) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday June 30 2019, @03:29PM (4 children)
There's a common practice in motor vehicle law enforcement...one that's certainly rampant in NJ...that puts a real ugly spin on the "discretionary" term there. That's the fact that most states more or less "let" people drive well over the speed limit on highways most of the time, and usually only stop the most egregious offenders. A highway around here with a 65 MPH posted speed limit literally has an effective limit of about 80 during morning rush hour, and you pretty much must keep up or you actually end up getting in the way of everyone else...arguably in a dangerous way in fact.
What this means of course is that at any given point in time, everyone is breaking the law in a manner for which they could surely be convicted based on radar. This also means policy can single out whoever they want for whatever reasons they want, whenever they want...or just because they're in a bad mood. This is a bad state of affairs, and can only be fixed by a) having realistic speed limits and b) actually enforcing them. I don't know how other states are with this, but that's the way things have always been here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 30 2019, @04:46PM (2 children)
> I don't know how other states are with this, but that's the way things have always been here.
Most states I've driven in seem to be this way. At one point, Connecticut was very strict, policing to the limit, not sure if this is still true? Rural Vermont has a low blanket limit that is also enforced. Of course there are small towns on major roads where speed traps pad the local budget...
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday June 30 2019, @05:57PM
I know that at one point Maryland was very strict. 55 meant 55, at least within whatever error tolerance would hold up in court for the radar.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Sunday June 30 2019, @10:28PM
Connecticut was particularly bad in the Tolland area, made worse by the highway patrol there having a bad attitude.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday June 30 2019, @10:45PM
Try getting on the NJ Turnpike in the truck lanes heading south from NYC at about 3 in the morning. It would be terrifying if you did not have a car that could keep up.
This was recognized as a problem with law far previous to the current day (not saying it should not be fixed). Think of "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." from Cardinal Richelieu in the 1600's. Ever since law deviated from the Code of Hammurabi in Babylonia about 1754 B.C., this sort of thing has occurred. The Code was posted in a public place, so that every man could know the law and thus not have an excuse to break it, as well as authorities not having right to enforce laws that were not known to the public. Today law is so obfuscated that no one, even the judges ruling on it, have absolute knowledge of anything but a small fraction of the laws to which we are subject. So anyone running afoul of authorities can be likely have something dug up of their activities that would put them in violation of some law. Traffic laws are just a microcosm of this.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 30 2019, @05:36PM (4 children)
Gangsters all! (I like that... social harmony. Ohh, murrrrder!)
But c'mon. We still still have British Royalty. Strapping men, standing for the Queen.. What more do you want?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Sunday June 30 2019, @08:19PM (3 children)
Hey, the Brits could kick out the royalty any time they wanted - of course there's the /minor/ detail that a large part of Britain's operating budget comes from profits on the vast royal wealth held in trust by the government in exchange for allowing the royals to continue their titular rule. Kick out the royals, and the Brits have to either give back all that immense wealth, or openly steal it.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Monday July 01 2019, @09:58AM (2 children)
> Hey, the Brits could kick out the royalty any time they wanted - of course there's the /minor/ detail that a large part of Britain's operating budget comes from profits on the vast royal wealth held in trust by the government in exchange for allowing the royals to continue their titular rule
There is also the minor detail that the royal family is in control of the army. All armed forces units still swear an oath to serve and protect the crown, not the government, nor the common people for that matter. The current arrangement as such is the royal family do not exercise any influence on military or political decisions, and delegate all control to the government, but as head of the armed forces, they can at any moment remove the delegation and assume control of the military.
It is one of the ways of keeping the government in check, so even if by some chance we end up with our own version of loony dictator wanting to conquer the world, the crown can overrule them, dismiss parliament and even arrest said loony and stick them in the tower of London, if they wanted to.
Downsides include that the armed forces could (and would, in the past) be used against their own people, if they got a bit too uppity against the crown. In fact it was them using the army against the common people that eventually resulted in the arrangement above, as the people organised into their own army and a bunch of wars were fought until we reached the current status quo.
> Kick out the royals, and the Brits have to either give back all that immense wealth, or openly steal it.
I would disagree about calling it stealing. After all, it isn't like the royals originally got that wealth through clean means, and we have moved away from the idea that "god ordained them to rule all" as it was in the past. Most of their wealth was through conquest and/or violence. Theft, essentially, from the rest of us. They should be the last to complain about it being "stolen" back from them.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday July 01 2019, @11:04AM
> All armed forces units still swear an oath to serve and protect the crown, not the government, nor the common people for that matter.
The queen is the government and the common people. Hence the Royal wee.
> the crown can overrule them, dismiss parliament
Interestingly things changed rather recently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]
I *think* the queen can no longer dissolve parliament.
It is irrelevant because practically the queen cannot dissolve parliament as she is not allowed to collect taxes without parliament. We had a civil war over this one (two or more if you include 1688 and the Jacobite rebellions) and it is the keystone to British democracy.
> arrest said loony and stick them in the tower of London
No, the awesomely-named "star chamber" was done away with in the 17th century. We had a civil war over this one.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday July 01 2019, @08:08PM
If you steal something from me, that I stole from someone else, you've still committed theft.
Right now all that wealth legally belongs to the Crown - doesn't matter how they got it, it's legally theirs (morally is a separate question, irrelevant to law). Which means taking it would be theft.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Sunday June 30 2019, @11:59PM
cars put 3000lb+ vehicles easily capable of 100mph+ in the hands of an average person. The average person isn't responsible enough to be trusted with this power without a firm governmental boot resting on their neck. This is us being humans. This is what are limits are and what is required.
As more powerful technological tools become available to the average person more strict, controlling & firm government oversight and punishment will be required. Your average person is a careless, arrogant, dipshit.