It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Royalists stupid????

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:10 PM
Are royalists less intelligent than non-royalists? If so are they too stupid to be able to vote on whether their should be a royal family? This applies to any nation who has a royal family.Is then the true way to a republic to create a more intelligent world?

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by s12345

I am against the monarchy and always will be, as they do absolutely nothing for the country, other than scrounge money from every citizen in the country (even ones who can't afford to pay their bills or afford a 24/7 shelter).

I don't think its fair to measure intelligence by pro-monarchy or anti-monarchy as there isn't really a choice (there is no vote, and tax is mandatory..). But i would say, that people who accept the monarchy for abusing stolen money from the public by wasting it on pointless events, trips, over-the-top food and clothing... while we have families struggling with food for their kids... you would have to be stupid.

One solution would be to get rid of the monarchy but keep the tax in place, instead redistribute it to those who are struggling with illness, shelter, food.

The monarchy's stolen hoard of cash would be better suited at feeding kids than allowing them to prance around in a new rolls royce every month.... ever since i was born, not one member of the royal family has done a single thing to persuade me otherwise.

I guess someone would have a lower intelligence by being pro-monarchy, especially with the way the current "system" works...
edit on 11/3/2012 by InsideYourMind because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:49 PM
Why would anyone want to pay for the rich to become richer when the do absolutely nothing to better anything?

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 12:39 AM
Monarchy is basically obsolete. The English one is probably the most visible, at least that I know of, and they're a good case in point. I don't have anything against them; it would really be difficult to, because they don't really do anything.

If monarchy still served some positive social function, I wouldn't object to it, but it doesn't seem to. All it really seems to be at this point, is an excuse for keeping a (very small, at this point) demographic completely out of touch with the rest of the population.

I get the feeling that royalists are mostly people who derive some degree of comfort from the idea of having unbroken traditions which have literally gone on for thousands of years. I think tradition can be a very positive thing; but I also think that it needs to be at least periodically re-evaluated, in order to make sure that it is still serving whatever productive function that it was originally intended to. If it is not, then it needs to be changed, or perhaps discarded.
edit on 12-3-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:07 AM
Please add additional thoughts to the existing thread HERE on basically the same subject.


new topics

top topics

log in