• 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!

Welfare state vs the night-watchmen state-which do you support?

Welfare state vs the night-watchmen state-which do you support?

  • Im a right leaning American, Welfare state.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a left leaning American, Welfare state.

    Votes: 16 48.5%

  • Im not American, Welfare state.

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • Im a right leaning American, Night-watchmen state.

    Votes: 13 39.4%

  • Im a left leaning American, Night-watchmen state.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im not American, Night-watchmen state.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    33
US Conservative said:
Paying at the end of a govt rifle isn't really my thing. Im not a fan of coercion.
Click to expand...

Same. Not a fan of coercion. That's why I would opt for the state to use its violence to do as little as possible. A night watchman state is the minimum possible.

Anything that I would not consider it legitimate for me to do to my neighbor, I won't support the state doing that.
 
Phys251 said:
So in other words, minarchism is a hypothetical? Not including one's personal interpretation of the early days of the United States, there are no national-level examples of minarchism anywhere on the planet?
Click to expand...

I think it reflects the creeping nature of govt in general. Remember, the govt defines success by the number of people dependent on it. More dependence, more power.
 
Henrin said:
Except we have more prisons and a welfare state now.
Click to expand...

And we have more prisons thanks to the war on drugs. If you'll check, the other 'welfare states' in Europe have FAR fewer prisons...and some of them have higher standards of living than America.

If you want to live in a much freer nation with far lower taxes, there's lots of third-world nations that would do just fine for you. But if you want to live in a first-world nation, you've got to pay the price of admission...also known as 'high taxes'.
 
Phys251 said:
So in other words, minarchism is a hypothetical? Not including one's personal interpretation of the early days of the United States, there are no national-level examples of minarchism anywhere on the planet?
Click to expand...

Yes, all systems of government had a time when they were never tried before. It happens.
 
Federalist said:
Same. Not a fan of coercion. That's why I would opt for the state to use its violence to do as little as possible. A night watchman state is the minimum possible.

Anything that I would not consider it legitimate for me to do to my neighbor, I won't support the state doing that.
Click to expand...

This seems quite reasonable to me, why isn't it more popular? Is it because people have been conditioned to think the govt is the source of all things good?
 
US Conservative said:
Arguably progressive policies made it worse, actually. It was great for consolidating govt control and making people think govt was the bees knees though.
Click to expand...

If 'big government' made it worse, then why is it that the biggest government-funded stimulus in American history - WWII - got us out of the Depression instead of sending us even deeper into the Depression?
 
US Conservative said:
I think it reflects the creeping nature of govt in general. Remember, the govt defines success by the number of people dependent on it. More dependence, more power.
Click to expand...

As expected, you did not answer my question. I would like some real-live, present-day, examples of minarchism.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And we have more prisons thanks to the war on drugs. If you'll check, the other 'welfare states' in Europe have FAR fewer prisons...and some of them have higher standards of living than America.

If you want to live in a much freer nation with far lower taxes, there's lots of third-world nations that would do just fine for you. But if you want to live in a first-world nation, you've got to pay the price of admission...also known as 'high taxes'.
Click to expand...

The war on poverty has been every bit as destructive and failed as the war on drugs.
 
Henrin said:
Because that has been the trend since the 18th century(I think) all around the world.



I have no choice in that, so why even bother with that argument?
Click to expand...

You have all the choice in the world - nobody's stopping you from moving to a third-world nation in Africa or South America or Southeast Asia. Go ahead - there's the border. Don't let the gate hit you on the way out. But if you want to stay here, you've gotta pay the price of admission...otherwise known as high taxes.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And we have more prisons thanks to the war on drugs. If you'll check, the other 'welfare states' in Europe have FAR fewer prisons...and some of them have higher standards of living than America.

If you want to live in a much freer nation with far lower taxes, there's lots of third-world nations that would do just fine for you. But if you want to live in a first-world nation, you've got to pay the price of admission...also known as 'high taxes'.
Click to expand...

Do you think the increase in crime would come out costing me more or less than the welfare state? I suppose to answer this question you would have to know what percentage of those that are taking welfare would turn to crime and what each inmate costs in relation to what each one of those individuals costs now as someone that receives welfare. Personally, I can't answer that question, but can you?

Considering however that progressive taxation and income taxes are needed to fund the welfare state due to the demands of the system, I highly doubt it.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
If 'big government' made it worse, then why is it that the biggest government-funded stimulus in American history - WWII - got us out of the Depression instead of sending us even deeper into the Depression?
Click to expand...

Markets correct. And it could be argued that govt intervention against these corrections dont solve anything, they make them worse.
Heres a tongue in cheek (but clever) synopsis of that argument.
 
US Conservative said:
This seems quite reasonable to me, why isn't it more popular? Is it because people have been conditioned to think the govt is the source of all things good?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it's not more popular. It saddens me to realize how many people are happy to have people violate others on their behalf. I don't think they ask themselves, "Would this action that I'm asking others to do be ethical for me personally to do?"
 
US Conservative said:
Paying at the end of a govt rifle isn't really my thing. Im not a fan of coercion. And in any case the entitlement welfare state has got to go for numerous reasons.
Click to expand...

If you really hate taxes, then go live in a third-world nation where you'll pay little or no taxes. But if you want to live here, you've gotta pay that price of admission that is otherwise known as high taxes.

I mean, really, you think you're entitled to have all the benefits of life in America without paying the taxes that are necessary to maintain that standard of living??? Seems to me that the ones with an entitlement fantasy are those who think that they can have all the benefits of life in a first-world democracy while paying little or no taxes!
 
US Conservative said:
Why do you say this? Its not the same as the absence of charity or support, its just not from the govt.
Click to expand...
Private charity isn't sufficient to meet the basic needs of the general populace. Government involvement in the economy, whether it be in the form of environmental standards, public accomodation laws or supplemental income assistance, is vital in promoting macroeconomic growth and preventing social unrest, alongside fulfilling a moral good.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
If you really hate taxes, then go live in a third-world nation where you'll pay little or no taxes. But if you want to live here, you've gotta pay that price of admission that is otherwise known as high taxes.

I mean, really, you think you're entitled to have all the benefits of life in America without paying the taxes that are necessary to maintain that standard of living??? Seems to me that the ones with an entitlement fantasy are those who think that they can have all the benefits of life in a first-world democracy while paying little or no taxes!
Click to expand...

Seriously? You're taking about taking peoples property to raise your standard of living and you're honestly calling other people entitled? Are you for real?
 
US Conservative said:
Markets correct. And it could be argued that govt intervention against these corrections dont solve anything, they make them worse.
Heres a tongue in cheek (but clever) synopsis of that argument.
Click to expand...


Wrong answer! If you'll check, 'market forces' took a back seat during WWII. The government went very deeply in debt because of WWII. According to conservative economic dogma, all that SHOULD have driven us farther down into the Depression.

But it didn't.

What's more, according to conservative economic dogma, the 90% top marginal tax rate during the 1950's (and 70% until 1980) SHOULD have been utter disaster for the economy.

But it wasn't.

In other words, all you're doing is tossing out philosophical arguments...but the real-world RESULTS say something completely different.
 
US Conservative said:
My views are formed empirically. In a way its evidence of our own success, this self-hate is seen after several generations of financial success, most often where the individual takes the things he's earned for granted. Its a fascinating dichotomy to me.
Click to expand...

I sincerely doubt your views are 'formed empirically'. They can't be, unless you've walked a mile in liberal moccasins. I've lived both sides of the story - I was a strong conservative until my early 30's, and having been one, I know how conservatives generally think.

Have you ever truly been a liberal? If you have not been one, then how do you get off pretending you know how we think?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Wrong answer! If you'll check, 'market forces' took a back seat during WWII. The government went very deeply in debt because of WWII. According to conservative economic dogma, all that SHOULD have driven us farther down into the Depression.
Click to expand...

War also boost your economy when you blow the rest of the world into oblivion. It also helps when you move away from the gold standard and to a system of counterfeit money. Not that I support the gold standard either since it was just a different system promoted and put in place by bankers.

As for the tax rates you just sighted, they are nothing but numbers on a piece of paper as no one paid them.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
You really gotta watch those assumptions - I don't resent the prosperous, because I am prosperous myself.

But I'm still waiting - as I have for years - for the small-government crowd to show me ANY first-world nation that has the conservative trifecta of small government, low effective taxes, and little or no regulation. After all, if the almighty market forces are as strong as we all know they are, then NONE of the big-government welfare states would be first-world nations...

...but instead, ALL of the first-world nations are big-government welfare states.

Why is that?

And if you can't answer, don't let that worry you...because no other small-government conservative has ever been able to answer that, either.
Click to expand...

Big government is easy to vote for, because that's how politicians get elected and re-elected by giving away the only commodity govt has..... money. Frankly I doubt you knew the answer.
 
Still waiting on real-life, present-day examples of minarchism.
 
Henrin said:
Do you think the increase in crime would come out costing me more or less than the welfare state? I suppose to answer this question you would have to know what percentage of those that are taking welfare would turn to crime and what each inmate costs in relation to what each one of those individuals costs now as someone that receives welfare. Personally, I can't answer that question, but can you?

Considering however that progressive taxation and income taxes are needed to fund the welfare state due to the demands of the system, I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

I can indeed answer the question because I've lived in a third-world nation and could see first-hand what happens when the government won't and can't help the poor. When there's no jobs and you have no way of feeding your family without turning to crime, you turn to crime. It's awful doggone hard to argue with an empty stomach.

And I notice you've completely refused to answer why it is that ALL the first-world democracies are big-government, high-effective-taxes, strong-regulation socialized democracies, and why it is that ALL 'small government' democracies are third-world nations.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I can indeed answer the question because I've lived in a third-world nation and could see first-hand what happens when the government won't and can't help the poor. When there's no jobs and you have no way of feeding your family without turning to crime, you turn to crime. It's awful doggone hard to argue with an empty stomach.

And I notice you've completely refused to answer why it is that ALL the first-world democracies are big-government, high-effective-taxes, strong-regulation socialized democracies, and why it is that ALL 'small government' democracies are third-world nations.
Click to expand...

You also didn't answer my question. I was looking for a calculation that tells me I would save money with your system, not rhetoric about people turning to crime.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Tell that to all the other first-world socialized democracies that have far fewer homeless people, thanks to their anti-poverty campaigns.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of your preference. They are basically shorting the labor supply to keep wages and taxes up. For someone who looks at it just in terms of economics, it is acceptable; but if you are someone who puts real value into work--the whole holistic concept of what having a job, getting promoted, etc mean--then welfare is an anathema. To some work is a means to money, but for others it is so much more than just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom