• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is welfare capitalism?

Is welfare capitalism?

  • Yes but it should go away

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes, it's OK

    Votes: 2 16.7%

  • No and it should go away

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • No but it's OK to stay

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    12
Canell

Canell

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
3,851
Reaction score
1,170
Location
EUSSR
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Welfare

Is there any controversy between capitalism and welfare? Should it be eliminated? :)
 
Last edited:
grip said:
Welfare is a social program provided by the government, while Capitalism is an economic system. Two different animals.
Click to expand...

I thought Capitalism was a political system too. :roll:
 
Canell said:
I thought Capitalism was a political system too. :roll:
Click to expand...

You mean like socialism? They're both economic systems with political ramifications because they include the role of the government.

Democracy, republic and communism are more political systems.
 
grip said:
You mean like socialism? They're both economic systems with political ramifications because they include the role of the government.

Democracy, republic and communism are more political systems.
Click to expand...

There is no economic system without politics (laws). Am I wrong?
 
Canell said:
Welfare

Is there any controversy between capitalism and welfare? Should it be eliminated? :)
Click to expand...

You can't compare the two . . . capitalism is an economic system. Welfare is a social program. The two can co-exist quite fine, thank you. And, no, welfare should not be eliminated.
 
Canell said:
There is no economic system without politics (laws). Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I didn't say you could separate them just that Welfare is more of a government operated program than an economic system. Even the Romans had a sort of Welfare. All Charities are a form of Welfare, it simply means helping those whom by circumstance are impoverished.
 
grip said:
I didn't say you could separate them just that Welfare is more of a government operated program than an economic system. Even the Romans had a sort of Welfare. All Charities are a form of Welfare, it simply means helping those whom by circumstance are impoverished.
Click to expand...

Yes, welfare is a government policy. The question is: should it exist?
Charity is something different since average Joe doesn't get taxed about it but some people decide to give things away for free.
 
Canell said:
Yes, welfare is a government policy. The question is: should it exist?
Charity is something different since average Joe doesn't get taxed about it but some people decide to give things away for free.
Click to expand...

I don't like the idea of welfare at a federal level. I think people in a community should support each other. But Americans are too self centered for that.
 
Canell said:
Yes, welfare is a government policy. The question is: should it exist?
Charity is something different since average Joe doesn't get taxed about it but some people decide to give things away for free.
Click to expand...

That to me is like asking should the "Defense Department" exist. I think that Welfare could be reformed somewhat but it would be fairly nasty to defend our citizens against violence from outside sources but let the poorest among us starve and die on the streets.
 
grip said:
That to me is like asking should the "Defense Department" exist. I think that Welfare could be reformed somewhat but it would be fairly nasty to defend our citizens against violence from outside sources but let the poorest among us starve and die on the streets.
Click to expand...

Yes but in order to give to John the state must take from Joe. ;)
There were no welfare benefits 100 years ago. Right?
 
Canell said:
Yes but in order to give to John the state must take from Joe. ;)
There were no welfare benefits 100 years ago. Right?
Click to expand...

Before the Depression anti-poverty programs were primarily operated by private charities, churches and state or local governments.

The United States has no national program of cash assistance for non-disabled poor individuals who are not raising children, except food stamps. What is your point that tax payer money shouldn't go to anyone poor? I don't agree with that but it's not my call. But I think they should reform many social programs. If it's a budget problem you're addressing, then I can think of many other areas to cut spending.
 
Canell said:
Welfare

Is there any controversy between capitalism and welfare? Should it be eliminated? :)
Click to expand...

Define "capitalism". Define "welfare".

For me, "capitalism" - as opposed to "socialism" - is a free-market ideal. It is about the freedom of choice, not about the maximal profit regardless of circumstances. You be the judge: how often our economic reality is actually "capitalist", in this sense.

"Welfare" is highly undesirable - in theory - the perverse incentives and unintended consequences are too many to mention - but! Is the (however clumsy and misguided in practice) desire to help the least fortunate something we have to focus on and militate against, as libertarians?

God, no.

We can double, triple our assistance to the poor (in a very different, intelligent way, please) - and still balance our budgets, and revive our economy, and shrink the damn bloody government, etc.

Look at the pie chart of our federal expenses: the military and the entitlements - that's where the money is.
 
Last edited:
Cyrylek said:
Define "capitalism". Define "welfare".

For me, "capitalism" - as opposed to "socialism" - is a free-market ideal. It is about the freedom of choice, not about the maximal profit regardless of circumstances. You be the judge: how often our economic reality is actually "capitalist", in this sense.

"Welfare" is highly undesirable - in theory - the perverse incentives and unintended consequences are too many to mention - but! Is the (however clumsy and misguided in practice) desire to help the least fortunate something we have focus on and militate against, as libertarians?

God, no.

We can double, triple our assistance to the poor (in a very different, intelligent way, please) - and still balance our budgets, and revive our economy, and shrink the damn bloody government, etc.

Look at the pie chart of our federal expenses: the military and the entitlements - that's where the money is.
Click to expand...

As a self-described libertarian I agree. Even Friedman, Hayek, and Mises all supported some type of social safety net. Granted, I think that public assistance should be delivered in a different form than it is now, but when you look at how much we're spending on helping less fortunate compared to everything else, it makes you realize that there's a lot that you can cut before you even get to actually helping the poor.
 
Cyrylek said:
Define "capitalism". Define "welfare".
Click to expand...

OK.

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production...
Click to expand...

Welfare is the provision of a minimal level of well-being and social support for all citizens, sometimes referred to as public aid. In most developed countries, welfare is largely provided by the government, in addition to charities, informal social groups, religious groups, and inter-governmental organizations.

The welfare state expands on this concept to include services such as universal healthcare.
Click to expand...

Cyrylek said:
Look at the pie chart of our federal expenses: the military and the entitlements - that's where the money is.
Click to expand...

Yes, that too. :doh
 
Canell said:
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of capital goods and the means of production..."
Click to expand...

Which tells you approximately nothing about anything.

Let's say, I have a cow (no pun intended); her udder is one of the "means of production". I had fed her, I had vaccinated her, I milk her every freaking early morning... - and then one day a tovarisch kommissar pops up at my door ( his loaded revolver conspicuously displayed), and tells me that I have to pay dearly for my cow being fatter, silkier and happier than any other cows in the village.

Well, f... you very much. I'm on the next boat to America, Canada or Australia- if I still have THAT luxury...
 
Last edited:
Canell said:
OK, perhaps we should try this one: CAPITALISM: Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
Click to expand...

Then it's answered right on that very link.
Rand said:
it represents the best way to achieve ‘the common good.’ It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence.
Click to expand...

So in that remark the most effective "welfare" is a secondary consequence OF a successfully implemented capitalistic economy. Or another way to write, if welfare is an aspect of the best implementation of the common good, capitalism results in thhe best way to achieve it.

Off the cuff I would think that's trivially true based on reality.
 
Mach said:
Off the cuff I would think that's trivially true based on reality.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that welfare is a by-product of Capitalism?
 
Canell said:
Are you suggesting that welfare is a by-product of Capitalism?
Click to expand...

No. But remember this comes from your own suggestion to use that link, so really you're currently backing it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/156473-welfare-capitalism-2.html#post1061652225

I am interpreting it for you. And no, welfare is not suggested to be a by-product of capitaism in that above claim, although I almost wrote the same thing a few times.
It is suggesting that welfare itself is rational. That capitalism fully engaged will result in people having the freedom and resources to supply welfare better (presumably more effectively) than in any other system. And I think we all know the quality of life that has arisen from adopting largely capitalistic aspects of economic policy and its lifted more people out of poverty and provides more dollars for welfare than...alternatives. Although I hear North Korea can rain fire on people :/

See the difference?
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
You did when you suggested we use the definition in post #19. I'm concerned that you asked that....

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/156473-welfare-capitalism-2.html#post1061652225
Click to expand...

I don't know dude. "Common good" and "welfare" are not the same, imho. Let's try again from the site capitalism.org:

Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its’ result is the free-market.
Click to expand...

Nothing about welfare or welfare benefits.
 
Canell said:
I don't know dude. "Common good" and "welfare" are not the same, imho.
Click to expand...
So welfare is not for the common good? Please elaborate, I would not have thought you'd hold that position!

Nothing about welfare or welfare benefits.
Click to expand...
The same author, on the same page, remarks on the relationship though, why are you dismissing it?

“The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve ‘the common good.’ It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.” — AYN RAND
Click to expand...

Or:
rand said:
Impossible right to economic security implies slave labor: Morally, the promise of an impossible 'right' to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don't. If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor. Source: "The Ayn Rand Lexicon, " by Harry Binswanger, p.529 , Jan 1, 1998
Click to expand...

Rand said:
Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between west and east Berlin is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man's well being is not their goal.
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone I know.

Perhaps you need to likewise define welfare. I would submit that form the Randian view, which you have quoted for capitaism, collective the welfare of man has risen to heights never before seen in human history as a direct result of capitalism. If you mean specifically taking from the rich and handing it.. even then you have more wealth form the rich to pillage. Either way it seems to all come back to "it's better with butter...err..capitalism".
 
Mach said:
So welfare is not for the common good? Please elaborate, I would not have thought you'd hold that position!
Click to expand...

I have given the definition of "welfare" in posts #1 and #17.
I don't mean "welfare" as "well-being", more like "public aid", provided by the (welfare) state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom