Are knighthoods good or bad?

that is service to the state itself, not a charity or other such thing, so it is much more appropriate. I consider it different as those people aren't given titles, they're given medals for specific performances that aren't relative like the honours given to by people outside of the military. in terms of military titles such as "captain", "commander" e.g. I don't consider that privilege if this is actually a job title. I do object, however, to state leaders e.g. prime ministers receiving arbitrary awards from other nations (or more importantly, us giving awards to other nations' leaders) e.g.




who said I was talking about absolute equality? I was talking about equality before the law, not socialism

that is service to the state itself, not a charity or other such thing, so it is much more appropriate. I consider it different as those people aren't given titles, they're given medals for specific performances that aren't relative like the honours given to by people outside of the military. in terms of military titles such as "captain", "commander" e.g. I don't consider that privilege if this is actually a job title. I do object, however, to state leaders e.g. prime ministers receiving arbitrary awards from other nations (or more importantly, us giving awards to other nations' leaders) e.g.

who said I was talking about absolute equality? I was talking about equality before the law, not socialism

But service to a charity is also serving the people of the state, is it not?

military service is service to the state and for the interests of that state. it may not be for the interests of the community to go to war with innocent people in other countries like it has been the case for in the past but it wasn't for the interest of that community in those circumstances. military service is strictly, and objectively, a role that is to further the interests of one's state internationally and if people of the community like this, then that is purely a coincidence. it is not their role to be liked, it is their role to protect the state's interests, just like the police. it is not about whether the community is favourable to those people - it's simply not their job to satisfy people in that particular way. they enforce the law and the will of the government. that's all.

And yes, military commanders are regularly given titles, most of the Heads of the Armed Forces are Knights. And there is also a great deal of relative honours granted in the Armed Forces, things that would have gained medals for bravery in WW1 and WW2 are no longer given. It is, by common agreement, far harder to win a VC now that it was during the Falklands, for instance.

it's not saying anything other than that.

I disagree with knighting them - being called a knight/sir is simply a meaningless/patronage based privilege seeing as it's given to so many undeserving (e.g. explicitly controversial or untalented people) or political people. if you are a captain, commander, private, lieutenant, general, etc, that is your role or position, whereas "sir" as a title means simply that the government respect you. it's not saying anything other than that.

But these people keep their medals after they leave the forces and keep them for life unless they are found guilty of some fraud or gross misdemeanour.

And as has been pointed out, the possession of a knighthood has nothing to do with legal equality - a knight has the same legal rights and responsibilities as you or I.

it conveys a clear and unequivocal messgage - the state as an institution respects them over other individuals

And neither is the Knighthood or any other honour. It's just the country saying "thanks". Why's that wrong?

Clear as mud, actually.

I don't understand your point? of course they keep their military medals, why would they have them taken away? they performed certain state duties and that same institution (the state) rewarded them for that service. it's not like charity. the state doesn't mandate that people perform charitable works

no, I'm saying that giving certain unobvious people honours is a distinct intention to create inequality. and it is lawful inequality because it is a prestige. it is a symbol of state respect. as I had already said, it is not substantive, it is symbolic. it conveys a clear and unequivocal messgage - the state as an institution respects them over other individuals

there's a distinct difference between the "state" and "society". the state speaks on its own behalf as a matter of literal and legal sense. as for the parliament, it is "representative" but still if those MPs were employed to legally represent the society, 1) we'd have a different voting system, and 2) they would be legally barred from lying or changing their mind.

Then the solution to your criticism is to reform the system so that appointments to the orders are more meritocratic, surely?

how on earth is it as clear as mud? give me a rational and principled explanation

No, but then why is that a problem? It's the nation, as well, being grateful, and while nobody's asked them to perform charity, I am pleased that those who do get decorated for it.
That's not legal inequality (and inequality is perfectly legal) - what you mean is 'I just don't like it'.

Erm, again, pretty sure this amounts to nothing more than you just don't like it, instead of there being a legitimate grounds to complaint. MPs, our voting system, and their legal obligations (or lack thereof) are entirely legitimate and sensible insofar as the British system of law has evolved.

No.

Hereditary titles are separate to honours. If my Dad,for example, was awarded a Knighthood, I wouldn't become a knight on his death, it would just 'disappear'.
.

1) I disagree with the whole system either way so it makes no a lot of difference - it is unnecessary and conveys nothing but state favour in its current form

2) how would it be meritocratic? what standards for measuring this would be used? what about a democratic system?

no, the state isn't a legal democracy, the state is a legal monarchy with representative sections.

the state in a legal sense isn't to perform representation. even the parliament in a legal sense only has the role of making laws, just because there is an election it doesn't mean they are legally mandated to following their election promises, because their only role is legislating in the way THEY see fit, not us

Because you are pretty much the only person I've ever encountered who has that view, ergo, the view that it "clearly" does something is not very clear at all. I certainly don't agree with it one iota, but that's hardly coming as a surprise to you, is it?