View Poll Results: Why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

Voters
136. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's just a coincidence, an accident of economics.

    1 0.74%
  • These are just lies fed to us by the liberal media!

    3 2.21%
  • Yes, certain socialized programs DO benefit a democracy's economic health.

    132 97.06%
Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 201

Thread: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

  1. #91
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,683

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Like I said, quibbling over semantics and nothing more.

    America, the major nations of the former British Commonwealth, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, France, Germany (and the rest of most of Western Europe) all have certain things in common, one of which is that they are all representative democracies...and they are all part of what is termed the first world, where third-world level poverty is generally unknown.

    You know what I am saying. Why is it that these nations, these representative democracies - or whatever label you want to put on them, they still share many governmental similarities - are still the most successful nations in human history when it comes to the strength of their economies, the stability of their governments, and the standard of living of their respective populations.

    Why is that? Why are they - in the light of human history - so wildly successful, when ALL of them have had included as integral parts of their governments patently socialist programs that touch every corner of their societies?

    Why?
    The correct term is "Constitutional Republic".
    Virtually all of these nations rose to the their First World status prior to implementing the socialistic policies that you refer to. They are an outgrowth of their success, not a cause. You can point to a handful of gov't funded initiatives that helped, but by and large, the success of these nations had little to do with socialistic initiatives. It was only when they achieved a certain level of success that they were able to afford the far-reaching socialistic initiatives they have.
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  2. #92
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Your argument that because I don't live in a third world nations means that therefore I know nothing about their economies is petty and fallacious, and each type you repeat it you just embarrass yourself.

    As to your question, for free markets to exist there has to be a strong protection of property rights. That is nonexistent in third-world nations. The Freedom Index does a relatively good job at classifying the freedom of economies. I suggest you look into it.
    Guy, do you really think that what you see on the computer screen or hear on the television in any way enables you to really understand what life is like in a third-world nation? Do you really?

    You remind me a great deal of my family when I was growing up in the Deep South - they were in many ways very educated...but they were so ignorant of what life was really like beyond our borders. So was I, until I joined the Navy and saw the world. And it was not until I'd spent some time overseas and then came back home that I realized just how very ignorant they were of the world...and how very ignorant I had been, too, until I'd actually been there and done that.

    Again, how about giving us YOUR definition of a free market.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  3. #93
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Sooooo...you think, then, that Citizens United was a really bad decision by the Supreme Court?
    any group/person that can lobby government for their own welfare, be it the NRA, UNIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL, BIG BUSINESS, KOCH BROTHERS, GEORGE SOROS, is not a good form of government, all of those entities and people i named are factious combinations, who seek to buy and control our government, which is why the founders hate and did not create a democratic form.

    because democracy is a false misleading idea,....... democracy is actually an oligarchy run by the few.<----------factious combinations

  4. #94
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    They didn't lose because they took on freer economies. They lost because they took on the Soviet Union. If it hadn't been for the Soviets, we stood zero chance at all of taking back Western Europe.

    Remember, when we invaded Normandy, the Soviets had already pushed the Wehrmacht back into Poland. All our invasion really did was to shorten the war and keep Western Europe from being chained behind the Iron Curtain.
    It's still a bad example, because the Nazis lost. Furthermore, coming out of WWI, Germany was suffering immense inflation. Their dollar value, as a result of brutal WWI reparations to the Allies, reduced the German Mark to 4,200,000,000,000 Marks to the Dollar. This lead to widespread poverty going into the Nazi era. Reform groups and nationalists began to rise, which lead to the rise of Hitler, but it was economic market loosening by the Allies and a revalued Mark based on gold - not Hitler reforms - which saw a strengthened German economy.

    Pick up a history book that wasn't written by a socialist. You might learn something.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  5. #95
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by faithful_servant View Post
    The correct term is "Constitutional Republic".
    Virtually all of these nations rose to the their First World status prior to implementing the socialistic policies that you refer to. They are an outgrowth of their success, not a cause. You can point to a handful of gov't funded initiatives that helped, but by and large, the success of these nations had little to do with socialistic initiatives. It was only when they achieved a certain level of success that they were able to afford the far-reaching socialistic initiatives they have.
    Actually, no. Japan was utterly devastated in the aftermath of WWII, and the constitution they got with our (forced) guidance contained much the same programs that they have today. Same goes for S. Korea, Germany, and Italy. Germany, in particular, started down this road in the late 1800's:

    Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck's behest, in 1881 by Germany's Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: ". . .those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state."

    Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."


    Note that when Germany implemented this, it had only been founded a little over twenty years earlier.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  6. #96
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Guy, do you really think that what you see on the computer screen or hear on the television in any way enables you to really understand what life is like in a third-world nation? Do you really?
    I do not need to live in a third world nation to tell you that they are not economically free, just as I didn't need to live in the USSR to tell you it wasn't economically free.

    You remind me a great deal of my family when I was growing up in the Deep South - they were in many ways very educated...but they were so ignorant of what life was really like beyond our borders. So was I, until I joined the Navy and saw the world. And it was not until I'd spent some time overseas and then came back home that I realized just how very ignorant they were of the world...and how very ignorant I had been, too, until I'd actually been there and done that.

    Again, how about giving us YOUR definition of a free market.
    What a nice story. Fact is, you don't have to live somewhere to know what policies are in place, and whether those policies advance or inhibit economic freedom.

    And I already gave you an answer, which you ignored. To reiterate:

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte
    For free markets to exist there has to be a strong protection of property rights. That is nonexistent in third-world nations. The Freedom Index does a relatively good job at classifying the freedom of economies. I suggest you look into it
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  7. #97
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    any group/person that can lobby government for their own welfare, be it the NRA, UNIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL, BIG BUSINESS, KOCH BROTHERS, GEORGE SOROS, is not a good form of government, all of those entities and people i named are factious combinations, who seek to buy and control our government, which is why the founders hate and did not create a democratic form.

    because democracy is a false misleading idea,....... democracy is actually an oligarchy run by the few.<----------factious combinations
    Ah. It's good that you don't want private money in politics - we agree on that much, at least. But you believe that democracy is actually oligarchy? How about describing what you think is a better form of government - and tell us how that government would be able to provide the first-world status that you and I enjoy today under what we have now?
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  8. #98
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,683

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Actually, no. Japan was utterly devastated in the aftermath of WWII, and the constitution they got with our (forced) guidance contained much the same programs that they have today. Same goes for S. Korea, Germany, and Italy. Germany, in particular, started down this road in the late 1800's:

    Germany became the first nation in the world to adopt an old-age social insurance program in 1889, designed by Germany's Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. The idea was first put forward, at Bismarck's behest, in 1881 by Germany's Emperor, William the First, in a ground-breaking letter to the German Parliament. William wrote: ". . .those who are disabled from work by age and invalidity have a well-grounded claim to care from the state."

    Bismarck was motivated to introduce social insurance in Germany both in order to promote the well-being of workers in order to keep the German economy operating at maximum efficiency, and to stave-off calls for more radical socialist alternatives. Despite his impeccable right-wing credentials, Bismarck would be called a socialist for introducing these programs, as would President Roosevelt 70 years later. In his own speech to the Reichstag during the 1881 debates, Bismarck would reply: "Call it socialism or whatever you like. It is the same to me."


    Note that when Germany implemented this, it had only been founded a little over twenty years earlier.
    .. you only prove my point. At that time Germany was a serious economic power in the world, giving the m the financial ability to provide the services you pointed out (which are small-scale socialism, not the large scale Socialism that you seem to want to equate them to).
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  9. #99
    Sage
    Glen Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, here I am...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    15,498

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    It's still a bad example, because the Nazis lost. Furthermore, coming out of WWI, Germany was suffering immense inflation. Their dollar value, as a result of brutal WWI reparations to the Allies, reduced the German Mark to 4,200,000,000,000 Marks to the Dollar. This lead to widespread poverty going into the Nazi era. Reform groups and nationalists began to rise, which lead to the rise of Hitler, but it was economic market loosening by the Allies and a revalued Mark based on gold - not Hitler reforms - which saw a strengthened German economy.

    Pick up a history book that wasn't written by a socialist. You might learn something.
    Ah. Yet another person who refuses to give a leader credit for what happens on his watch. That's how it is, isn't it? If something happens that you like, then give the leader credit...but if it's something that goes against what you personally want to hear, never, ever give that leader credit for it, huh?

    In the Navy, if a ship runs aground at zero-dark-thirty while the captain's in his bunk snoring away, at the court-martial he will say that he was personally on watch at the conn even though he was asleep in his bunk, and he will be held accountable as if he were the one personally at the conn.

    Why is this? Because he was the one responsible for making doggone sure that his subordinates, from his executive officer (second-in-command) all the way down to the newest recruit on board are all properly trained and supervised and disciplined...and if he had made sure that they were all properly trained and supervised and disciplined, then the ship would never have run aground to begin with.

    And so it goes in government - it is the leader's responsibility to make sure that everyone under him is properly trained, supervised, and disciplined...and if they are, the nation almost always prospers. If not, then it soon becomes corrupt and much less effective.

    That's why the president is sometimes called the head (or the captain) of the ship of state. The metaphor fits better than you might think.
    To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what hes doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn

    "...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump

  10. #100
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

    Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post
    Ah. It's good that you don't want private money in politics - we agree on that much, at least. But you believe that democracy is actually oligarchy? How about describing what you think is a better form of government - and tell us how that government would be able to provide the first-world status that you and I enjoy today under what we have now?
    the founders created a republican form of government were power in separated into 3 parts [power the ability to pass laws], democracy has power in only 1 part.

    it is easy to buy and control the 1, instead of trying to buy and control the 3, because each of the 3 in not concerned and about the interest of the others, they are concerned about they interest, so for any law to be passed and signed into law, all 3 must agree to create laws which in the the interest of each other.

    because there are 3 sources of power, factions combinations cannot buy and control government.....

    good governments are government, that do little for the people and have maximum liberty, the more government does for the people the more it controls them, governments that use force on the people, fail in the end.

Page 10 of 21 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •