What can we really do to make the world better..

Discussion in 'theory, philosophy & history' started by jcherish, May 2, 2018.

  1. jcherish

    jcherish Banned Banned

  2. Fez909

    Fez909 toilet expert

    Take a bag with you to the supermarket
    Turn your lights off when not in use
    Eat the rich
  3. Mrs Miggins

    Mrs Miggins There's been a slight cheese accident

    Don't be a cunt
  4. Gromit

    Gromit International Man of Misery

    Vote Labour and encourage others to do so too.
  5. cypher79

    cypher79 Banned Banned

    Abolish the Monarchy.
  6. Gromit

    Gromit International Man of Misery

    Would there be any noticeable difference in the UK?
    Taxes wouldn’t go down as a result of the exiditure cut. It would just get swallowed by the deficit.
    The tourist boost they provide would be lost.

    The government would have some nice buildings it could sell off for some quick capital but a lot of them would still be kept for the sake of national heritage and still be a drain on the public purse.

    Can’t say that it would make a huge difference to the world.
    greenfield likes this.
  7. Infidel Castro

    Infidel Castro Producto Falso

    Let super computers make decisions for us.

    I for one welcome our new silicon overlords, etc.
  8. cypher79

    cypher79 Banned Banned

    It's 2018 ffs, we don't need silly kings and queens anymore....clinging onto shit like this just holds society back imo.
  9. Gromit

    Gromit International Man of Misery

    I’m not saying we do. I’m just asking how does it improve the world other than not offending your sensibilities?

    Lots of things exist that we don’t need. If we only had stuff we needed it would be a sad existence. Strengthen your argument please.
  10. Gromit

    Gromit International Man of Misery

    If it helps think of the Queen as being like Elvis Presley. Wheeled out occasionally to perform for us like a performing monkey. A well paid monkey that tourists come to visit her Graceland.
    She has no real power so we get the cake and eat it if her being our pet monarch, doing the pomp and ceremony some twats love whilst trapped in her gilded prison.
    Ralph Llama and greenfield like this.
  11. jusali

    jusali Happy daze.....

    Treat greed as a mental health condition, rather than celebrating and aspiring to it.
  12. dshl

    dshl Well-Known Member

    'Swallowed by the deficit' I guess could be applied to any savings. Royal residences not sold would be part of the national trust making money selling tickets to tourists and the general public. Cost of royals themselves, full accesses to the royal collections, royal jewels, tours of Buckingham, and other sites. Even if you think some particular site wouldn't make a profit but would still have to be maintained by the public, well they are anyway. At least this way something is made from them. There's also the private estates of royals, capital made from public capital - some would argue still public funds, etc.
  13. MadeInBedlam

    MadeInBedlam Arm the mentally ill

    It already is
  14. Mab

    Mab Kingston ON Canada

    Many of us can't travel the world to help but we can make a difference in our own communities. Care about one another, say hello to the gent who looks like he's feeling down, ask how he is and have a chat. This simple kindness swayed me from jumping many years ago. Simply be kind and defend the vulnerable and all of nature. From trees to cats, elephants, ladybugs, birds and spiders. Try to do what is decent and right. Do what you can and don't' be hard on yourself.
    sovereignb, Ralph Llama and S☼I like this.
  15. maomao

    maomao 四月她爹

    No. The buildings could be used to make money from tourists like they do in France where their long dead monarchy is a better earner than our living and breathing parasites will ever be. The 'tourist money' reason for keeping the monarchy is a lie.
    NoXion likes this.
  16. JuanTwoThree

    JuanTwoThree Haro-on-the-Hill

    I feel I've been hearing for a long time that the French presidency is every bit as expensive as the British monarchy. Obviously it's a false analogy between an executive presidency and a titular head-of-state.

    There is this from a very pro monarchist site:

    "It has long been the contention of those who would abolish the Monarchy that one of the virtues of a republican system is that it is, in some way, axiomatically cheaper than a Monarchy. On the face of it, it’s understandable to see why some may buy into this claim. After all, you don’t see presidents processing in state carriages or attending many great parades in their capital city, do you? (Hold onto that thought).

    As with so many things however not everything is as it seems and in this case, not by a long shot.

    To start this, I should prefix this with some background and also an explanation as to how I came to the following figures in this report. Firstly, this article was a long time coming. For some time now it’s been widely asserted that a republic would be a cheaper alternative to the Monarchy, to the point where fewer people seem to be willing to challenge it. This article acts as both a reference guide to Monarchists trying to prove the point that, actually, republics aren’t inherently cheaper (but Monarchies are better value for money) and also a full explanation of my case to any republicans who decide to read through this piece.

    The figures I reference in this report have been researched through what are reputable and reliable sources. Some are translated from their original language (hence some of the links lead to a Google translate page, for reference) and some are embedded in reports (I’ve done my best to try and signal where). But there’s no trickery going on here, I promise, the figures are accurate and my calculations are – to my certain knowledge – sound.

    And without further or-do, I begin…

    In this past year, the British Monarchy cost taxpayers £35.7 million. That represents a cost of 56 pence per person in the United Kingdom. The money, taken in taxes from the treasury, though pegged to the value of the Crown Estates (it’s complicated), covers the state expenditure of The Queen and her public role, including the maintenance of palaces (held in trust for the nation), the cost of performing over 400 engagements annually (travelling around the United Kingdom and affording recognition to local communities and other work), holding national celebrations (drawing millions of people together in celebration) and hosting receptions, garden parties, lunches and audiences to honour achievement and grant recognition.

    Incidentally, the cost incurred by the public does not include engagements carried out by other members of the Royal Family (other than The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh), which is met through The Queen’s personal income from the Duchy of Lancaster (and it is her personal, private income). Oh, and The Queen doesn’t get a salary either.

    All of the above considered, you might now be thinking we could do away with all this and slash our costs? Think again.

    Fortunately, we don’t have to go far across to the continent to get a fair comparison on cost with a republican model. The President of France, whose role is very similar to that of Her Majesty, cost French taxpayers a whopping £91 million. For the privilege of paying almost three times as much as the UK, France gets to forgo the pageantry and ceremonies, engagements and grand receptions that come with Monarchy, and they get a politician too.

    The total cost works out at £1.43 per person in France. Still a good deal?

    A little further south and we find the Italian Republic. Its president performs almost exactly the same constitutional function as The Queen, bar a few political powers, yet amazingly costs Italian taxpayers £181.5m per year! That’s £3.08 for every Italian! Yet again, no pageantry, no state celebrations and no apolitical, uniting national figure in their leader either!"


    Think a republic would be cheaper than Monarchy? Think again!

    Something makes me think this is bollocks.
    weltweit likes this.
  17. Gromit

    Gromit International Man of Misery

    If they made a comparison between Spain and France it might hold some weight but in the uk we pay for a priminister and a monarch. They didn’t factor that into the cost comparison.
  18. Gromit

    Gromit International Man of Misery

    Yes people do go to museums to look at stuffed animals.
    More people visit zoos where the exhibits are alive. It’s more exciting.
  19. maomao

    maomao 四月她爹

    So where can people go to see the 'live exhibits' of the British Royal family? And how much do they pay for the privilege?
  20. Gromit

    Gromit International Man of Misery

    London. They pay an airline, then hotels, bars and restaurants. Then never get to see them but the promise is there that they could have.

    Perhaps zoo was the wrong analogy and disappointing safari or whale tour is closer. Where people pay in the hopes of seeing wild animals and all the guide manages to show them is some spoor of where the live animals were but have moved on. Still costs you lots of money.
  21. Grump

    Grump Well-Known Member

    Here's a little thought experiment about the value of replacing the monarchy with a president. First, think of the Queen, been doing the job uncomplainingly for 70 years or whatever, says very little that offends, puts on a good show, doesn't, on the face of it, give a toss what party is in power.
    Now, think of a time when we overthrow the monarchy and do what everybody else does, put into the position a retired, usually failed politician. President Mandelson! No, that's too silly, President Blair! Oh fuck me,President Cameron!
    Long live the Queen!
  22. Gromit

    Gromit International Man of Misery

    The wisdom of crowds led to Hitler, President Trump and successive Thatcher governments to name but a few.

    Who have thought that hereditary positions could seem like the lesser of two evils.
    Grump likes this.
  23. nuffsaid

    nuffsaid But this goes up to 11

    The monarchy are just a hangover from history, ignore them, they don't make laws anymore, they're a red herring.

    It's the gangsters in charge of the Federal Reserve and the overall US establishment we should be revolting over. The owners of the world bank, and the oil companies. Kick them out, they run the world to maintain their wealth and they see us as mere slaves. They own most of the media to perpetuate this, so you can include some media moguls to be got rid of as well.
  24. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Without music, life would be a mistake.

    The president of France is not a ceremonial head of state, but a governing executive in a dual-executive system. French presidents have power over foreign policy and defence when the prime minister is not from the same party, and over everything when president and prime minister are from the same party. The president is assumed to have the upper hand in any deadlock. So not very similar at all to the Queen, unless there's something we don't know.
    mojo pixy likes this.
  25. danny la rouge

    danny la rouge Without music, life would be a mistake.

    And actually, anyone with even a little interest in foreign affairs knows that. "Royal Central" is clearly counting on readers with no interest in foreign affairs.
  26. dshl

    dshl Well-Known Member

    Just look at only the land they have stolen from the people. The red herring is a red herring.

    How much land does the Royal Family actually own?

    '...Property within the Crown Estate’s central London portfolio includes almost all of Regent Street and around half the buildings in the St James’s area, comprising retail, residential and office space.

    Away from the capital, the Crown Estate owns 14 retail and shopping parks and three shopping centres, as well as a large portion of the UK’s offshore windfarms - mainly because the estate manages the seabed out to a 12 nautical mile limit.

    In addition, many of the Royal residences are held by the Crown Estate: Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, and the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and Hillsborough Castle in Northern Ireland are all part of the portfolio.

    The Royal Family also privately owns swathes of land across the UK in the form of two duchies, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall.

    All income from the Duchy of Lancaster goes to the reigning monarch, while the Duchy of Cornwall makes money for the heir to the throne - in this case, Prince Charles...'
  27. Yogibear

    Yogibear Let it be Banned

    Learn to love and believe in yourself. Concentrate on yourself. Do that and things will change for us all...
  28. S☼I

    S☼I motorneon cycleness

    I concentrated on myself and I went blind
    krtek a houby likes this.
  29. JimW

    JimW 支那暗杀团

    Be the change you want to see, out of a fiver.
  30. Ralph Llama


    Throw yourself into perfectly legalish action .
    Or be a journalist.
    Creativity is the the thing . Like The Yes Men , they were good.
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
    eskdave likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice