Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "serpentza"
channel.
-
52
-
28
-
10
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eymed2023 oh, you're one of those people....
"real socialism has never been tried."
No, socialism has failed every time because it's a failed theory. It doesn't work because it ignores reality. It's a fantasy for those of low intelligence.
When gov tells companies what they can/cannot buy/sell, when they tell consumers what they can/cannot buy, that is gov-run socialism as you mentioned. And that is exactly what the US gov has been doing. They have been controlling healthcare, controlling energy, controlling car production, strangling aviation manufacturing, controlling many other industries.
No matter how good your "perfect democracy" is, it will never work. Utopia is ripe for pillaging. And the US is not a Democracy (mob rule), it is a Republic, and for good reason.
"It's intended to reduce poverty and make everyone richer and safer by ensuring people are highly compensated for their work." that doesn't work, it never works. you pay people according to teh effort they put in. if they are a worthless employee, you fire them, if they don't put the effort in, you promote the employee who did. life isn't fair, and it never will be.
"What 50% of americans and brazilians call "Socialism" is actually a combination of government protectivism, human rights, and just basic human decency." that's your personal opinion, not a fact.
"Taxing policies in the US are intrusive, inflationary and disruptive to market. Smarter taxing policies could minimize or eliminate those issues." this i agree on, but has nothing to do with socialism.
"The main culprit is the lack of a real, robust democracy to combat corrupt governors." wrong, the problem is too much gov, and gov failing to enforce anticompetition laws, anti-monopoly laws, taking bribes from corporations, election campaign finance fraud, allowing rich people in one state, in influence representatives of a different state, etc. Too much gov control over the lives of individual people. You don't fix corruption by giving teh corrupt more power.
Welfare is a primary culprit of problems in teh US. it incentivizes laziness and uselessness. Prior to taxpayer funded welfare, we had charity, and it scientifically and objectively worked Better than gov welfare, and it incentivized people getting back on their own feet.
Trump actually fought against the corruption, and pointed it out head on and they destroyed him for it. He admitted openly he was using the system the other politicians created, but that those politicians will never fix it because it benefits them. And he rightly pointed out that if it's ok for them to do it, then they can't get mad at him for doing it. But that doesn't make it right, and he acknowledged that. And he said all of that right to their faces. And he deserves credit for that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eymed2023 I thought you said you were moving on with your life? guess we can establish your word doesn't count for much then.
"Keep in mind that I mean FULL democracy, as in the WHOLE package. Not just one or two elements." and what might that "whole package" be? you're just making stuff up.
Democracy: a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
Democracy: control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
"—Parlaments and councils with proportional representation of seats.
—Score voting for presidents and decisions.
—Yearly debates, public assemblies and plebecites.
—Anyone can vote, run for president, or create a party. Or join the debates.
—Anyone can propose laws or policies and have everyone vote on weather to approve them or not."
Don't need a parliament for democracy. democracy can be by direct democracy too, and thus no council is strictly required.
score voting? wtf is that? are you saying some people don't actually get a vote? or that some people count less?
debates are good, but not required for democracy to exist. Depends on what the debates are for and about, and done by who.
Allowing anyone to join a debate results in chaos. good luck with that.
"Anyone can propose laws or policies and have everyone vote on weather to approve them or not." dumbest idea I've ever heard.
"The short explanation is that human societies are complicated, and so are the power dynamics in a democracy." wrong, you're just using that as a scapegoat to avoid being wrong and to pretend it's too complex to grasp so you can get away with BS. Total cop-out.
"The majority tends get divided over issues they disagree on. " if they disagree, then they are not the majority now are they?
" If there's an issue that only affects 1% of society, that one 1% has plenty of oportunities to try and get that issue fixed by suggesting policies and trying to get them approved." and they'll get voted down 100% of the time too. Hence, mob rule.
"There is nothing to GUARANTEE that minority opinions will be heard or that minority groups will be cared for. But a democracy is still the system that gives minorities the best chance of being heard and cared about." wrong, the best system for representation of minorities is a Republic.
"For example, if 40% of people want higher taxes and the 40% want lower taxes, the 20% has an IMMENSE ammount of power to decide who's gonna win." wrong, becasue that 20% doesn't exist as a voting block, they are not elligible to vote (children), choose not to vote/participate, or they take a side and increase the 40% on either side. Terrible argument!
"ALL citizens are represented at the parliament by someone they chose. OR they can create a party themselves." wrong. there is always a finite number of representative seats in a gov, unless you do a direct democracy (mob rule). Otherwise everyone represents themselves, chaos ensues, and you have mob rule.
"The average joe also tends to be (comparatively) more humanitarian and more concerned about the wellbeing of others than the typical autocratic governors. Most people DON'T want minority groups to be enslaved or killed. " correct, and this bore itself out best during the rise of the US under Capitalism in a wide range of ways.
"There are exceptions (such as the USA in the 1800s)," bold faced lie which proves you know NOTHING about early American history.
"A — People with heavy opinions on both sides tend to be a minority, while the majority is calmer and more open to debate. In which case, democracy leads to more debates and thus, better policies being put in place that end up being better for everyone." provide a real-world case example of this occurring in history.
"B — The majority is angry, intolerant and violent, and only a minority of people are sane. In this case, democracy still gives the sane ones a chance to win whereas autocracy gives them none." this is called mob rule
You're not very good at this whole debate thing. lots of speculation and little to no evidence or logical reasoning. misusing statistical examples, failing to cite examples or show how it plays out in reality.
The best way to do this is pick ONE issue at a time,a nd focus on that before moving onto the next. this scatter-brained approach is terrible. the fact you can't boil down what democracy is to one paragraph tells me you don't understand it. we're off in the weeds in all different directions making a proper coherent argument impossible as you are trying to make 15 different arguments simultaneously. pick your best one and stick with that for the moment. otherwise this is joint childish nonsense and a waste of time.
1
-
1
-
1