Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Political Parties Explained" video.

I think more direct democracy like Switzerland is desireable, since I hate the gate keeping of all the 8 parties here in Sweden that all thinks the same on most issues. And having a person running a one-man show does not work. Not even Hitlers Germany was runned by just 1 man. You need ministers and lots of people that can be delegated to handle minor issues. And while I understand that people love Trump, Ron Paul, Farage and Bernie Sanders and hate the party they represent I still think they need to get their manpower to fill a government from somewhere. It would be wonderful if those leaders got power from the voters so they could run over their own worthless party if needed. But I wonder how such a system would work. And I am also worried that people are stupid and vote for people only for their celebrity status (Hillary Clinton) or because of their looks (Justin Trudau, Macron).
1
What we have today is feudalism. Its certainly not the people who decide. And feudalism is not mertitocratic, on the contrary is it totally against sane policies. Sweden tried rule by noblemen between 1721-1809. And that was the worst period in Swedish history. The country lost 4 wars in a row and got economically ruined, and then was Finland and Pomerania lost. All because of the incompetent rule of the nobles. And still we were lucky, because things could easily have ended even worse, in 1743 and 1809 was there a very high chance that Russia would have taken over the country because of the treason and betrayal of the nobles. The best periods in Swedish history was after the Kings had executed all of the nobility. Then was the country, rich, unified and strong. Polands history is basically the same. A great power with enormous population and resources got wrecked only because of poor leadership and selfish nobles that put personal interest before national interest. And the result became that Poland got divided up, and was subject to one genocide after another - Swedens murder of 20% of the population, Hitlers murder of 20% of Polish population in the holocaust, the Katyn massacre by the Soviet union. So getting rid of the nobles is the best thing a country could do. They should be forced to live in poverty and the only way to make career for them should be by serving their King/country. If they try to carve up their own indepentent countries within the state, then they should be put down for treason instantly.
1
A very good take.
1
I see similiarities to most systems. Swedens system works roughly the same way. Our Conservatives (Moderaterna) are also a top down party, and if you do not vote in parliament like the leader wants then you will have your political career in the party ended. You will not be welcome to run for the party the next election, so you will lose your seat in parliament. Our biggest leftwing party - the Socialdemocrats, are less authoritarian. But how do they get people to vote for their policy in parliament? - They use bribes. They give well paid jobs to Green party members as chiefs of government agencies. And if there are no government agency left to give away, then they just make up a new one with some responsability over some BS area, like "enviromental protection and animal safety", eventhough similiar agencies already exist. And then they can get 20.000 Euros per month from the tax payers. And in return do the Green members of parliament vote yes to everything that the Socialdemocrats suggest. So which system is best? The authoritarianism or corruption? Pick your pill. I have become very cynical. Most people are tribalist idiots. Why would I vote for a Conservative politician which constantly gets his anti-censorship view thrown under the bus by his own party? If I was a Green voter, why would I election after election vote for this corrupt party? Why should I support the socialdemocrats that uses tax payer money as a tool to gain political power?
1
Some of it is natural and rational. But that of it we can see by never-trumpers and people who believe 100% of what the old media says are just easily manipulated idiots. I think we all will belong to a tribe because we have common goals and interests. Workers want higher wages because it is good for them. Capitalists wants wages to be low so they can make more profits. The two groups have opposing interests. If you give workers 0% in wages you will make capitalists happy but the workers unhappy. If you give workers 100% of the cake you will make the Capitalists unhappy. So you will always make a group unhappy. And that is what politics is. Your groups interest against other groups interests. You cannot both be for Brexit and Remain. You cannot both respect womens right to choose and forbid abortions. You cannot both make cannabis legal and illegal at the same time. If you make one tribe happy you will make another unhappy.
1
If it would truely work, then sure I would support it. But so far I have never seen a single good example where it could work. Positive discrimination is when you have two exactly equally talented candidates, and give the job to the candidate which belongs to an under-represented minority. A wonderful thought. But is that how things work in practice? Nope. In reality it is impossible to even compare two candidates. Maybe they have the same grades from the same school, but one of them have worked at similiar job before and therefore got more experience? Maybe one person got more social competence and therefore can be better at handling customers and coworkers? Maybe one of them also have read other courses than can be helpful in the job? How does one even compare all those different skills? Is there any objective measurement in which one can compare the ups and downs between those workers? And if no such measurement exist, then how can one determine that two people are "equally qualified"?
1
A socialist boy in a brownshirt
1
I do not want to become a politician. People are too stupid to vote for me. And even if I got strong support, I do not wish to be a public person and have my private life made public. And If I get succesful and cannot be destroyed in debates, then will my political opponents hire the media to smear and trying to destroy me, and "attacking the person instead of the arguments". Why would I want to go through such an awful thing? Furthermore do I not like to make negotiations and compromises with idiots. Or having to stand up for politics that I do not believe in. My party demand me to represent those stupid views for the sake of unity in the party. The coalition government parties expect me to sell their stupid policies as a good deal for the people and not openly in public call them out as the idiots they are. So no. Politics is not something for me.
1
https://youtu.be/Of_jyeDZ3Sg?t=3
1
@der1222 As I sees it is Belgium totally a creation of the 1800s. And yes, sure it have been held under Spanish and Austrian rule and been separated from the Netherlands for a long time.. But as a country it is a 1800s creation. When Belgium finally was free to join the Netherlands again, it did ironically chose to leave it. Part of it because of religion, part of it being a little different, but mainly because the Netherlands had a huge national debt and Belgium did not want to pay for debts that other parts of the country had benefitted from, while Belgium was not a part of the country. So why should then Belgians pay money to make rich bankers in the North richer? So Belgium left this project of the united Netherlands. And it did well without them. Belgium was the 2nd country in the world to have an industrial revolution so as an industrial powerhouse it did not need any help from another country. Soon it also laid hands on Congo which had enormous natural resources. And the country became enormously rich. For some reason have the country never really bothered to unify again with the Netherlands. From an economic nerds view should it be the perfect couple - industrial Belgium and the farming Netherlands. And culturally it would make sense. But perhaps the French speaking population would be unhappy about it, what do I know? I have spoken to Canadians and Belgians and neither of them see multi-culturalism as a benefit, and I doubt that the Swiss do either. Losing Finland after 700 years of ownership probably saved Sweden from much trouble as I sees it.
1