• 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
KevinKohler said:
I believe it's because when people use buzz words like "welfare state", and the like, they are referring a system of socialism far most left than what we would like, in terms of social welfare.

My idea of a good social safety net, instead of unemployment, is employment. I mean, we're gonna pay these people...may as well put them to work.

Does that make me a pinko dirty socialist bastard? A welfare statist?
Click to expand...

If you want the govt to put them to work, yes it does. In reality the govt does not really create jobs (excepting itself-power always takes care of itself) but it does make it harder for citizens to get jobs. From minimum wage to illegal immigration.
 
Henrin said:
One deals with funding operations dealing with carrying out law like police and courts, while the other deals with using funding to help people meet their needs.

If the argument for taxation is that the state needs the funds so they can deal with criminals and the sort then there is no way you can fit the welfare state into the scope of the argument.
Click to expand...

And why is that exactly? Because you say so?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Any taxation at all is wealth redistribution - just like the conservatives have always said.

That said, why not do that which has been shown to be the most beneficial to the greatest percentage of the population? Besides, when taxes were much higher - as they certainly were for the thirty years from 1951-1980, during which we remained on top of the economic heap - do you remember the rich lining up at the soup line? Of course not. The taxes were much higher...and (except for what happened due to the Arab Oil Embargo) America prospered quite nicely.
Click to expand...

Do you even realize how bizarre that argument is? Taking peoples property by force is not somehow a good thing, so when your focus with tax revenue becomes helping people you're going to be taking even more from them, which means you will actually be acting even more aggressively towards the peoples property. All you really did was turn something that the founders couldn't avoid into a tool to throw around the governments influence.

Your argument is really no different than those people that say we should help out other nations, but never realize that such an action calls for even more tax revenue and puts American lives in danger.
 
Henrin said:
Do you think low taxes leads to recessions?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. However, the greater the income inequality, the less stable the economy...and if taxes are wealth redistribution, then if taxes are higher, and so the greater the wealth redistribution (are you gagging yet?)...which results in a lower level of income inequality and a more stable economy.

Yeah, you think that's perverse, you think that sucks...but which is more important to you? What sounds good philosophically, like 'small government'? Or what has given the world the best standards of living in human history, like 'big government'? Which is more important...coulda-woulda-shoulda...or hard-and-fast results?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I didn't say that. However, the greater the income inequality, the less stable the economy...and if taxes are wealth redistribution, then if taxes are higher, and so the greater the wealth redistribution (are you gagging yet?)...which results in a lower level of income inequality and a more stable economy.
Click to expand...

Except that is not how it works at all. No, the fifties don't prove your point either.

Yeah, you think that's perverse, you think that sucks...but which is more important to you? What sounds good philosophically, like 'small government'? Or what has given the world the best standards of living in human history, like 'big government'? Which is more important...coulda-woulda-shoulda...or hard-and-fast results?
Click to expand...

I side with property rights.
 
US Conservative said:
No. I dont know how I can spell this out any more clear. Taxation is a transfer of wealth to the govt for legitimate purposes, not to enable another citizens poor choices.
Click to expand...

Ah. And it's the same old argument that if someone's in a crappy situation, it's always because of their own poor choices, that it can't be because they were born and raised in a crappy situation that was never their choice to begin with.

And as I've pointed out before, you pay anyway. You either pay the extra taxes to help them out...or you pay the extra taxes (and other costs) for what happens when they see no hope of a better life at all (like more police, more jails, more courts, higher insurance prices, higher retail prices, lower wages...).
 
US Conservative said:
Night-watchmen state. The govt's role is to provide a minimalist role in protecting its citizens, not forcibly coercing everyone for the political power of the few.
Click to expand...

I agree. The only legitimate function of government that I can see is to protect people and the things people own from being violated by criminals or foreign invaders. A night watchman state provides this function. Anything else that the government might do amounts to initiating violence against people or what they own. Because of the inherent violence associated with such functions, I can't in good conscience support them.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. And it's the same old argument that if someone's in a crappy situation, it's always because of their own poor choices, that it can't be because they were born and raised in a crappy situation that was never their choice to begin with.

And as I've pointed out before, you pay anyway. You either pay the extra taxes to help them out...or you pay the extra taxes (and other costs) for what happens when they see no hope of a better life at all (like more police, more jails, more courts, higher insurance prices, higher retail prices, lower wages...).
Click to expand...

Except we have more prisons and a welfare state now.
 
US Conservative said:
I know several prosperous lefties who hate themselves. :lol:
They also dont like the rich. Its that modern guilt thing and its really more a lefty thing.
Click to expand...

Look, guy, you're just tossing out wild assumptions about those on the left that are every bit as wrong as are the assumptions by many on the left about those on the right. You know better than to do that.
 
Welfare state. The terminology gives most the heebie jeebies, but it's both practical and sustainable. Minarchism ( in it's strictest form) is no more palatable than Communism and Socialism.
 
Henrin said:
Do you even realize how bizarre that argument is? Taking peoples property by force is not somehow a good thing, so when your focus with tax revenue becomes helping people you're going to be taking even more from them, which means you will actually be acting even more aggressively towards the peoples property. All you really did was turn something that the founders couldn't avoid into a tool to throw around the governments influence.

Your argument is really no different than those people that say we should help out other nations, but never realize that such an action calls for even more tax revenue and puts American lives in danger.
Click to expand...

Then why is it that ALL the first-world democracies are high-tax, big-government, high-regulation socialized democracies?

If you want to go back to what the founders had, then go live in some third-world nation. You'll find out that there's a heck of a lot you can do there that you can't do here...like paying little or no taxes, for instance. But if you want to live in a prosperous first-world nation, then you must pay the price of admission to live there...also known as high taxes.

Either pay the price of admission...or go somewhere else.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I'm sure there's a hundred million or so people who lived through the Great Depression who might argue otherwise....
Click to expand...

Arguably progressive policies made it worse, actually. It was great for consolidating govt control and making people think govt was the bees knees though.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Then why is it that ALL the first-world democracies are high-tax, big-government, high-regulation socialized democracies?
Click to expand...

Because that has been the trend since the 18th century(I think) all around the world.

If you want to go back to what the founders had, then go live in some third-world nation. You'll find out that there's a heck of a lot you can do there that you can't do here...like paying little or no taxes, for instance. But if you want to live in a prosperous first-world nation, then you must pay the price of admission to live there...also known as high taxes.

Either pay the price of admission...or go somewhere else.
Click to expand...

I have no choice in that, so why even bother with that argument?
 
US Conservative said:
The USSR was a welfare state. By the provided definitions and otherwise.
Click to expand...

And the cow jumped over the moon, too.

The USSR was not a socialized DEMOCRACY. The nations with the highest standards of living in human history are ALL socialized DEMOCRACIES. The nations that won the Cold War were socialized DEMOCRACIES.

America IS a socialized DEMOCRACY. The USSR never was. Please stop comparing apples and oranges...because it's looking like you're caring more about winning than about having a sincere, logical discussion.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. And it's the same old argument that if someone's in a crappy situation, it's always because of their own poor choices, that it can't be because they were born and raised in a crappy situation that was never their choice to begin with.

And as I've pointed out before, you pay anyway. You either pay the extra taxes to help them out...or you pay the extra taxes (and other costs) for what happens when they see no hope of a better life at all (like more police, more jails, more courts, higher insurance prices, higher retail prices, lower wages...).
Click to expand...

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.
 
US Conservative said:
The problem with your statement is that when you say infrastructure I think roads and bridges, not entitlements and a dependent citizenry.
Click to expand...

Hate to tell you this, but you pay anyway. You either pay to help out the poor, or you pay for the results of what happens when there's no help for the poor...but in any case, you pay anyway.

And FYI, if you'll check, I also referred to roads and bridges as part of our infrastructure. I also included education. And military protection of our commerce. And our diplomatic efforts to encourage international trade. And police and fire protection. And support for our ever-more-crucial space program. All of these are part of our infrastructure.

And so is helping out the less fortunate...because if you don't pay to help them out, you'll pay anyway for what happens when they get no help at all...but you pay anyway.
 
US Conservative said:
I agree that there aren't real world examples of minarchism on a national scale
Click to expand...

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?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Look, guy, you're just tossing out wild assumptions about those on the left that are every bit as wrong as are the assumptions by many on the left about those on the right. You know better than to do that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Henrin said:
Except that is not how it works at all. No, the fifties don't prove your point either.



I side with property rights.
Click to expand...

Then feel free to show exactly why ALL the first-world democracies are socialized democracies with big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation...and ALL the democracies that have 'small government' are third world nations.

Why is that, guy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom