The first two want to consolidate power first. Typical capitalist move, get to the top, then pull the ladder up behind you.
The third guy has a sensible idea.
The ‘ban Liberalism’ guy probably can’t define Liberalism.
The ‘ban factory farms’ guy has a good idea.
The ‘ban cars’ crowd I sorta agree with. Cars should only be used in rural areas, where public transit is not viable.
The anti-Israel guy, wants to ban countries from solidarizing with Israel. An inherently pro-war take.
Historical Revisionism, I had to look up who Adrian Zenz is, and Zenz is critical of the Uyghur genocide. So yeah, Historical Revisionism just means ‘anything I don’t like’ to this commenter.
Edit: Changed ‘urban’ to ‘rural’ as pointed out by @goat.
Banning “all” factory farms is a terrible idea without suitable replacements. There’s a reason starvation has decreased world-wide over the past 100 years. There was a really good article posted yesterday about the challenges here.
From the context, he appears to be referring strictly to factory farming of animals. From an environmental and ethical position, it’s hard for me to argue against that. I eat meat, but I’m also aware of how awful conditions are on those farms, and just how far definitions of “ethical” are bent in order to define them as ethical. I think that we need to change culture so that people don’t view meat as central to a diet anymore, or eating large quantities of meat as being symbolic of having ‘made’ it
I also think that we likely need some kind of nationalized (maybe even international?) rotation for all crops, because the system that we’re using of heavy fertilization, etc. is depleting our soil badly, resulting in crops with less nutrition than we were getting just 50 years ago. We’re already in the beginning stages of climate collapse, and monoculture is making that significantly worse.
Yeah, though that’s going to be insanely costly for the government. Best solution is offering a cheap, readily available public version and then the premium services.
The ‘ban factory farms’ guy has a good idea.
It is! But ironically, animals are and have always been treated the worst in communist states.
The ‘ban cars’ crowd I sorta agree with. Cars should only be used in urban areas, where public transit is not viable.
The point of banning private versions of essential services is to make it so wealthy people have to use the same public version as poor people.
If a private alternative exists that rich people can use instead, the people who have the most power in society, then they have little incentive to provide a good public version.
You mean rural?
Yes, rural. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yeah, though that’s going to be insanely costly for the government. Best solution is offering a cheap, readily available public version and then the premium services.
Well, services naturally cost money. But yes, allowing private services would also be good. I’m just worried that the public version falls too far behind in terms of quality provided. As in, politicians see that the private version is only a bit more expensive than the public one, and therefore slash funding for the public version, causing the public quality to decrease, after which the private provider see higher demand, and then increase prices.
Third thing will only work if your land is filled with natural resources. Tankies sure take that for granted or just completely ignorant and doesn’t realize that communism is realistically only feasible only if your land has unlimited natural resources and slavery.
Not really, if you don’t charge for services at some point it’s simply going to be exploited. This why even government services that don’t turn a profit aren’t free.
Obviously it has to be paid for somehow. My comment was clearly referring to the fact that charging the user reduces frivolous usage. There can be an argument for providing a set small amount of services for free (at point of use) and then charging for everything above, but that’s not what was proposed.
The way they word it, it sounds like they want to do that permanently, or until Israel collapses, with no diplomancy. Obviously, if the actualy strategy is isolate them until they agree to reasonable demands, then that would be diplomatic, and render my point moot.
Edit: Changed ‘urban’ to ‘rural’ as pointed out by @goat.
Banning “all” factory farms is a terrible idea without suitable replacements. There’s a reason starvation has decreased world-wide over the past 100 years. There was a really good article posted yesterday about the challenges here.
Agree with the animal part, though.
From the context, he appears to be referring strictly to factory farming of animals. From an environmental and ethical position, it’s hard for me to argue against that. I eat meat, but I’m also aware of how awful conditions are on those farms, and just how far definitions of “ethical” are bent in order to define them as ethical. I think that we need to change culture so that people don’t view meat as central to a diet anymore, or eating large quantities of meat as being symbolic of having ‘made’ it
I also think that we likely need some kind of nationalized (maybe even international?) rotation for all crops, because the system that we’re using of heavy fertilization, etc. is depleting our soil badly, resulting in crops with less nutrition than we were getting just 50 years ago. We’re already in the beginning stages of climate collapse, and monoculture is making that significantly worse.
Agreed. An interesting and related read: https://nypost.com/2023/08/31/50-of-us-beef-is-eaten-by-just-12-of-americans-mostly-men-study/
If we didn’t use 60% of America’s grain belt for growing cattle feed (which humans can’t digest) we could easily feed ourselves many times over.
Yeah, though that’s going to be insanely costly for the government. Best solution is offering a cheap, readily available public version and then the premium services.
It is! But ironically, animals are and have always been treated the worst in communist states.
You mean rural?
The point of banning private versions of essential services is to make it so wealthy people have to use the same public version as poor people.
If a private alternative exists that rich people can use instead, the people who have the most power in society, then they have little incentive to provide a good public version.
I used to mix up Urban and Rural because Urban areas are where you grow herbs right?
Third thing will only work if your land is filled with natural resources. Tankies sure take that for granted or just completely ignorant and doesn’t realize that communism is realistically only feasible only if your land has unlimited natural resources and slavery.
“Third guy has a sensible idea”
Not really, if you don’t charge for services at some point it’s simply going to be exploited. This why even government services that don’t turn a profit aren’t free.
The said charging at the point of service. It is being paid for, just not at the time you need it.
Obviously it has to be paid for somehow. My comment was clearly referring to the fact that charging the user reduces frivolous usage. There can be an argument for providing a set small amount of services for free (at point of use) and then charging for everything above, but that’s not what was proposed.
deleted by creator
How so? This is basically just BDS.
The way they word it, it sounds like they want to do that permanently, or until Israel collapses, with no diplomancy. Obviously, if the actualy strategy is isolate them until they agree to reasonable demands, then that would be diplomatic, and render my point moot.