• 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
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're not going to get a straight answer to your question. Conservatives are quick to yell and slow to listen. Ironic, considering that their Holy Book tells them to do just the opposite.
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, do you know why the IRS was feared? It's because the IRS didn't play - and when people didn't pay, they went straight to jail. And FYI, the IRS first began using computerized tracking of taxes in 1961.

Again, guy, if low taxes were indeed the way to an economic utopia, then none of the first-world democracies of today would be first-world nations. You're arguing against results, with only assumptions and philosophy to back you up.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, we all knew the answer all right...which is why we were so strongly against 'Citizens United', which effectively allowed the rich to spend all they wanted to spend on elections...and which effectively took the rest of us out of the equation.
 
Henrin said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you'll read my post, it's not calculation - it's experience.

Go spend some time with some homeless people and find out just how hard it is for them to find and hold a job, since they're homeless and don't have clean clothes and no place to take a bath. If they can't get a job, and if they can't get any help from the government, how will they eat?

And that's how it starts. It's very hard to argue with an empty stomach...and the hungrier you are, the less you will care about what the law says.

Again, go live in a third-world nation for a while, and get to know the truly poor, and learn how they live their lives. It's a real eye-opener.
 
Declan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Almost everyone wants to do a good job, and wants to add real value to their work.

All I'm trying to do is to get people to look at what works in the real world, and what belongs in the dustbin of philosophical history. Socialized democracy works better than any other system in human history - that's what the results show. The only effective argument against socialized democracy is its sustainability in terms of raw material.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

It seems that many people are fine with delegating unsavory acts to elected functionaries, acts that they themselves would never undertake. Somehow people feel that having someone else do their dirty work absolves them of culpability.

This is why I have to come down on the side of a night watchman state. I can't ask the state to do something that I would not feel ethically entitled to do myself.
 
Phys251 said:
You're not going to get a straight answer to your question. Conservatives are quick to yell and slow to listen. Ironic, considering that their Holy Book tells them to do just the opposite.
Click to expand...

There's this bloody spot on that brick wall. Maybe if I try just one. more. time. I can get it to crack before my skull does....
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Almost everyone wants to do a good job, and wants to add real value to their work.

All I'm trying to do is to get people to look at what works in the real world, and what belongs in the dustbin of philosophical history. Socialized democracy works better than any other system in human history - that's what the results show. The only effective argument against socialized democracy is its sustainability in terms of raw material.
Click to expand...

There are other arguments against it. You just recognize the legitimacy of the one apparently. I do not agree that most people want to do be productive. I think most people want to get as much money as possible with the least effort as possible. My primary concerns are that companies would not adapt quickly enough to changing global markets and that it discourages people from being innovative in creating their own businesses with new products and services.
 
Somewhere between the two. The world isn't black and white and our public policy can't be either.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
If you'll read my post, it's not calculation - it's experience.

Go spend some time with some homeless people and find out just how hard it is for them to find and hold a job, since they're homeless and don't have clean clothes and no place to take a bath. If they can't get a job, and if they can't get any help from the government, how will they eat?

And that's how it starts. It's very hard to argue with an empty stomach...and the hungrier you are, the less you will care about what the law says.

Again, go live in a third-world nation for a while, and get to know the truly poor, and learn how they live their lives. It's a real eye-opener.
Click to expand...

Actually your argument demands some sort of calculation as you said I would pay either way as if the cost was equal or greater without welfare. Crime rates might very well be higher without the welfare system, but I don't believe costs would be anywhere near as high without it.
 
Henrin said:
Actually your argument demands some sort of calculation as you said I would pay either way as if the cost was equal or greater without welfare. Crime rates might very well be higher without the welfare system, but I don't believe costs would be anywhere near as high without it.
Click to expand...

It's easy to downplay the costs when one imposes them by force on others.
 
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...

Again, I dont see why this is hard for you to grasp. Im not against taxation. Im against taxation for purposes of wealth redistribution. Taxes for military and police=acceptable. Taxes to allow politicians to buy votes by forcibly redistributing wealth=bad.

Please read that again before responding.
 
a351 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How did man ever get by without big govt? And govts can't be moral because govts aren't people, but systems.
 
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.

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.
Click to expand...

Watch the video, so many of your arguments are discussed. Its catchy as well.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have grown up surrounded by liberals, I live deep in the heart of liberalism-California. I know exactly what liberals are (and even voted for gore, eeesh) in fact it was one of the reasons I became a conservative-by growing up surrounded by liberals.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed save for one thing-the only commodity govt has is SOMEONE ELSES money.
 
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...

Tell that to the multi generational poverty stricken here in the US. The govt is the dealer, enabling dependency. And its for votes.
 
The welfare State is my preference.

I can watch the night just fine by myself.
 
US Conservative said:
Tell that to the multi generational poverty stricken here in the US. The govt is the dealer, enabling dependency. And its for votes.
Click to expand...

If what you're referring to is absolute proof that socialized democracy is a failure, then explain why we don't see the same in even more socialized nations like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Canada, and most of western Europe.

What you're pointing to isn't proof of the 'failure' of socialized democracy - what you're pointing to is proof that we aren't implementing it as well as those other nations.
 
US Conservative said:
I have grown up surrounded by liberals, I live deep in the heart of liberalism-California. I know exactly what liberals are (and even voted for gore, eeesh) in fact it was one of the reasons I became a conservative-by growing up surrounded by liberals.
Click to expand...

Just living in California doesn't mean that one lives among a bunch of liberals - there's some very conservative areas in California. And my point stands - you didn't come by your claims by using any particular empirical measure.

Check out the definition of confirmation bias - it's enlightening, and applies very well to politics (and religion, and almost every other area of dispute between human beings).
 
US Conservative said:
Watch the video, so many of your arguments are discussed. Its catchy as well.
Click to expand...

I rarely if ever watch videos - for me, information is gathered much more quickly by reading...what I see in videos is simply too slow. Besides, videos can be so easily made to deceive (as O'Keefe did when he made egregiously-edited videos to attack ACORN).

Give me text - that's the world I deal with.
 
US Conservative said:
Again, I dont see why this is hard for you to grasp. Im not against taxation. Im against taxation for purposes of wealth redistribution. Taxes for military and police=acceptable. Taxes to allow politicians to buy votes by forcibly redistributing wealth=bad.

Please read that again before responding.
Click to expand...

Problem is, you're stuck in the mindset that taxation other than for things you personally support must therefore be bad. And as always, I point out that if that 'wealth redistribution' (which keeps so many people from being homeless, keeps so many children fed and healthier than they would be otherwise, and which DOES keep down the crime rate) was so bad for the nation as a whole, then NONE of the first-world democracies would be socialized democracies.

If you're going to maintain that taxation to support the social safety net is such a bad thing, then you've GOT to explain away the success of the first world democracies - ALL of which are socialized democracies, ALL of which have the very kinds of taxation and social safety nets you decry. Explain their sustaied success first.
 
Henrin said:
Actually your argument demands some sort of calculation as you said I would pay either way as if the cost was equal or greater without welfare. Crime rates might very well be higher without the welfare system, but I don't believe costs would be anywhere near as high without it.
Click to expand...

AGAIN, it's hard to argue with an empty stomach.

Picture this, guy - you're homeless...or if you do have a home you're having to decide between paying the rent and feeding your kid. You've tried so doggone hard to find a job...but nobody's hiring. Your kids are going hungry. What do you do?

You do the same damn thing that has driven so many women to prostitution, or you start stealing food...and that turns to other things.

If you were to live in a third-world nation for a while, where there IS limited government and there is NO social safety net, that's what you would see.

Henrin, if what you claim were true, then NONE of the first-world democracies would be socialized democracies. Problem is, ALL of the first-world democracies are socialized democracies. Every single one of them. You are - as always - arguing against what has proven to be the most successful form of government in human history. What you personally think or believe does. not. matter. when it runs counter to what is plainly obvious in the success of the socialized democracies of the world.
 
Declan said:
There are other arguments against it. You just recognize the legitimacy of the one apparently. I do not agree that most people want to do be productive. I think most people want to get as much money as possible with the least effort as possible. My primary concerns are that companies would not adapt quickly enough to changing global markets and that it discourages people from being innovative in creating their own businesses with new products and services.
Click to expand...

It's not really a matter of what people want or do not want to do. It's really more of a matter of leadership, of their system of government. As Napoleon once said, "There are no bad regiments, only bad colonels." If the people are living in a nation with a better system of government, they will do better. One sees this all the time with immigrants. Take a guy who's a bum in a third-world nation and bring him to a first-world nation, almost every time you'll see him working hard at a paying job.

Yes, individual people can be wildly different from each other, but generally speaking - and with allowing for local, cultural, and national norms - people are pretty much the same all over the world. That was my big paradigm shift in the Navy after growing up in the very deepest of the Deep South. People really are pretty much the same. Give them real opportunity and encouragement, and most (though certainly not all) will do their level best for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom