• A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    Ā·
    3 days ago

    You make it sound as if that was the point from the jump, rather than them being a vestigial organ you refuse to get rid of.

    • CherryBullets@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      3 days ago

      It was historically what they agreed to. That is their purpose in modern times. Not hard to understand.

      • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        3 days ago

        That is the purpose they adopted to continue to live at taxpayer expense.

        Also not that hard to understand, yall Europeans can be backwards af about this.

        • CherryBullets@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          3 days ago

          Iā€™m not European. Youā€™ll understand fast enough why many countries do this when the US gets a wannabe king, because the position isnā€™t taken šŸ˜‚

          • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            Ā·
            2 days ago

            Lmao okay so youā€™re implying that any State without a monarch is susceptible to someone claiming a nonexistent crown? Like its some sort of natural law like entropy?

            No fam weā€™ll just kill him

            • CherryBullets@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              2 days ago

              You donā€™t even have the guts to kill him as he says heā€™s a king currentlyā€¦ gtfoh. You ainā€™t as ballsy as the French.

                • CherryBullets@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  Ā·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  I really donā€™t think so. Many of the countries you think of as more democratic have a Monarch as head of State, because itā€™s understood between the Monarch and the people that if the Monarch steps out of line, the people will recognize it as obvious and kill them.

                  A dictator isnā€™t as obvious and as we see in the US, they change shit under your nose and their end goal isnā€™t as obvious as a Monarchā€™s, so many in the population donā€™t recognize their intentions as being a power grab (sound familiar?). A Monarch undermining democracy is obviously wanting power back, a dictator? Well they could just be ā€œDoing it for the good of the people šŸ¤Ŗā€. Most people arenā€™t stupid enough to fall for a Monarch saying they are grabbing power ā€œFor the good of the peopleā€, but are stupid enough to fall for a politician saying this, since they believe a politician is ā€œOne of themā€ (as they ignorantly believe all politicians come from their class; the peasantry). A Monarch was, is and never will be ā€œOne of usā€, they were obviously never peasants, so less people fall for the BS.