• 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!

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

Why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

  • It's just a coincidence, an accident of economics.

    Votes: 1 4.5%

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

    Votes: 3 13.6%

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

    Votes: 18 81.8%
  • Total voters
    22
Thrilla said:
try all that "socialized" stuff without Capitalism and see where you end up.;)

in any event, I don't know what you end game is here.... are you trying to say we'll get better and better if we have more government and higher taxes?...
Click to expand...

Did I say that we need to have radically higher taxes? Well, actually, when it comes to the very wealthy, we DO need higher taxes. I don't remember a single one of them going to the soup lines back in the 1950's when their tax rates were 90%. This isn't to say that they'll actually pay higher taxes - they'd just reinvest the vast majority of their profits back into growing their business like they did in the 1950's, thereby avoiding paying the taxes but also growing their businesses...which is good for everybody all the way down to the lowest-level workers.

That said, we don't need radically higher taxes for everyone or a government that's radically bigger than what it is. What we do need is a population that realizes that properly funding schools is NOT a waste of taxpayer money, that properly funding bridge maintenance and repair is NOT a waste of taxpayer money, that ensuring that everyone has access to quality health insurance and health care DOES pay greater dividends down the road than what it would cost now.

If you want to live in a first-world nation, then you MUST be willing to do your share to pay for what's required for that nation to maintain its first-world status: top-quality schools, good roads and bridges, regulatory agencies to keep the communities orderly and to keep corruption in check, access to health insurance and health care to keep the population relatively healthy.

Is this really such a terrible thing to consider?
 
glen contrarian said:
like all the other first-world democracies, we have significant elements of socialism as integral parts of our governments - they have more than we do, but we do have programs that are socialist in nature, like medicare, medicaid, free public schools, and many other different forms of public assistance. Don't get me wrong - we do need uhc, we do need to get our college tuition down to the same level as germany's, and we do need to ensure that yeah, millionaires pay at least as much in taxes as their secretaries do. But we've got as good as we can get for now, as long as the right wing controls the purse strings....
Click to expand...


and the founders were dead set against collective laws for our nation- federalist 63
 
Lakryte said:
What a load of nonsense. Without free markets the steam engine would have been useless, for it would not have been put to productive use. Without free markets, there would have been no industrial revolution. The increases in wealth of the 19th century would have been nonexistent. This is a historical fact, and your attempt at rewriting it is petty.
Click to expand...

Remind me again how a hypothetical can be a fact?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I suppose it depends on how you define “success”. If you define “success” by the power and robustness of the government, then perhaps you have a point. I would rather define success by the liberty and prosperity of the people; and by this definition, your entire argument falls flat.
Click to expand...

I define the success of a nation by the well-being of its population - after all, what is a nation without its population? I don't really see how one can honestly define the success of a nation otherwise.

And you have to be careful about how you define 'liberty', because in the third-world nations I've been to, even though the population is mostly very poor by our standards, they are subject to FAR fewer laws and regulations as we are here in America. It's not something you can really grasp unless you've been there. If 'liberty' is defined as (in so many words) the freedom to do whatever the heck one wants to do, wherever one wants to do it, and whenever one wants to do so, then there's a heck of a lot of third-world nations out there where the regular people are freer than we Americans are.

Wanna set up a little store on the street? No problem - no license needed...or if one is needed, just pay off the licensor. Sell whatever you want (within reason). Don't want to pay minimum wage? No problem - there is no minimum wage, and even if there is, it's unenforceable. Don't want to pay taxes? No problem - nobody's checking up on you. Don't want to give paid sick days? No problem. Nobody else does, either. Wanna fire a person because he's gay or black or wears plaid shirts? No problem - fire away.

Sounds like what a lot of libertarians and Republicans want, doesn't it? But that's life in a lot of third world nations.
 
Nilly said:
Remind me again how a hypothetical can be a fact?
Click to expand...
Ironic that you say that, because the argument I was responding to (that the steam engine would have existed and spread without free markets) is also a hypothetical. I guess hypotheticals are facts when socialists use them, right?
 
Lakryte said:
What a load of nonsense. Without free markets the steam engine would have been useless, for it would not have been put to productive use. Without free markets, there would have been no industrial revolution. The increases in wealth of the 19th century would have been nonexistent. This is a historical fact, and your attempt at rewriting it is petty.
Click to expand...

And you're ignoring the fact that while free markets DO help the spread of technology - I've never argued otherwise - free markets do NOT in and of themselves enable technological or industrial change. All one need do to prove you wrong is to rub your nose in how Nazism - which is among the LEAST free of markets - brought Germany from the people needing a wheelbarrow of cash in order to buy a loaf of bread to what was the second-largest economy (and in some ways the most technologically-advanced nation) on the planet.

Again, free markets do help a lot...but they are not the be-all and end-all of change for the better.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Or we can give some serious consideration to what Williams said. The man has a PhD in economics and is a tenured professor at George Mason University and has been studying and teaching these kinds of concepts for a very long time now. Do you just dismiss his assessment as irrelevant? Or does it merit at least a look at what he said?
Click to expand...

I don't automatically dismiss him, but neither do I take his degree of education as a sign that he's automatically right...just as I don't take the PhD's of (the relatively very few) scientists who deny AGW as proof that they're right.

All a degree means is that one is a lot more likely to know what one is talking about...but it's certainly no guarantee. See: George W. Bush, who graduated at Yale.
 
apdst said:
How many of the more socialized first world economies are on their asses, or standing by to be on their asses?
Click to expand...

Why don't you go to those nations and ask the immigrants who came to those nations if they'd rather live there, or if they'd rather go back to where they came from? And in case you're wondering, I do know many such immigrants.

In other words, yeah, the Great Recession hit. A lot of those socialized first-world democracies adopted austerity measures, whereas we took the stimulus route...and we're doing a lot better now than they are.
 
Lakryte said:
You don't have to live somewhere to know the extent to which free markets exist. Your argument is just plain stupid, and you have a faulty definition of free markets. Most African nations have virtually no property rights. Government corruption further undermines free markets there.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who obviously has zero REAL experience in third-world nations.

Tell you what - why don't you tell us what YOUR definition of a 'free market' is...and when you do so, make sure it's in line with libertarian economic dogma....
 
ernst barkmann said:
and the founders were dead set against collective laws for our nation- federalist 63
Click to expand...

Which means they'd prefer living in third-world countries today, instead of our modern first-world democracies?

But fortunately for all the free world of today, the founders were humble enough to know that they couldn't have all the answers for the future, and included ways for Congress to pass laws and regulations that would be necessary as the generations passed by....
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Which means they'd prefer living in third-world countries today, instead of our modern first-world democracies?

But fortunately for all the free world of today, the founders were humble enough to know that they couldn't have all the answers for the future, and included ways for Congress to pass laws and regulations that would be necessary as the generations passed by....
Click to expand...

no... its means the do not want a nation without individual liberty

democracy is collective, and is about collective rights, not individual rights.

"democracy is always at war with personal liberty"

democracy is a vile form of government -james madison

people are fooled by democracy thinking it is freedom, however it is not, democratic forms of government have many factionious combinations, that BUY and CONTROL a government....WHICH is why the rich and power, special interest groups, lobby government and keep government under their control.

the founders created a republican form to separate power, and to prevent factious combinations from seizing control......the republican form of government was broken withe 17th amendment and put america on a road to democracy which will destroy itself in time.

THOSE THAT CALL FOR DEMOCRACY............ THEN WHINE AND COMPLAIN BECAUSE GOVERNMENT IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, ARE GETTING WHAT THEY ARE CALLING FOR!
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
And you're ignoring the fact that while free markets DO help the spread of technology - I've never argued otherwise - free markets do NOT in and of themselves enable technological or industrial change. All one need do to prove you wrong is to rub your nose in how Nazism - which is among the LEAST free of markets - brought Germany from the people needing a wheelbarrow of cash in order to buy a loaf of bread to what was the second-largest economy (and in some ways the most technologically-advanced nation) on the planet.

Again, free markets do help a lot...but they are not the be-all and end-all of change for the better.
Click to expand...
Yes they do, and history proves it. Considering the Nazis lost the war to freer economies, that doesn't strike me as a good example on your part. Nazi Germany did not bring prosperity to the German people.

In recent years, many African countries are seeing economic freedom increase. And unsurprisingly, this has led to increasing living standards across Africa. They still need far more economic freedom to be on par with most of the developed world, and once that freedom is achieved it will take time for an economy to grow, but the freedom is the first necessary step.
 
Last edited:
Glen Contrarian said:
Says the guy who obviously has zero REAL experience in third-world nations.

Tell you what - why don't you tell us what YOUR definition of a 'free market' is...and when you do so, make sure it's in line with libertarian economic dogma....
Click to expand...
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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
no... its means the do not want a nation without individual liberty

democracy is collective, and is about collective rights, not individual rights.

"democracy is always at war with personal liberty"

democracy is a vile form of government -james madison

people are fooled by democracy thinking it is freedom, however it is not, democratic forms of government have many factionious combinations, that BUY and CONTROL a government....WHICH is why the rich and power, special interest groups, lobby government and keep government under their control.

the founders created a republican form to separate power, and to prevent factious combinations from seizing control......the republican form of government was broken withe 17th amendment and put america on a road to democracy which will destroy itself in time.

THOSE THAT CALL FOR DEMOCRACY............ THEN WHINE AND COMPLAIN BECAUSE GOVERNMENT IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, ARE GETTING WHAT THEY ARE CALLING FOR!
Click to expand...

Sooooo...you think, then, that Citizens United was a really bad decision by the Supreme Court?
 
Lakryte said:
Yes they do, and history proves it. Considering the Nazis lost the war to freer economies, that doesn't strike me as a good example on your part. Nazi Germany did not bring prosperity to the German people.

In recent years, many African countries are seeing economic freedom increase. And unsurprisingly, this has led to increasing living standards across Africa. They still need far more economic freedom to be on par with most of the developed world, and once that freedom is achieved it will take time for an economy to grow, but the freedom is the first necessary step.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lakryte said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Sooooo...you think, then, that Citizens United was a really bad decision by the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

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
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
faithful_servant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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:

Lakryte said:
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
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

.. 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).
 
Lakryte said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom