• 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
If men were angels, that is if all people were good hearted and good intentioned and worked to put their sweat where their mouth was, either would do.


The problem with a night-watchman state it is doesn't prevent the exploitation of the poor, as seen during the Industrial revolution and indeed until modern governments instituted workplace safety rules and so on.

The problem with the welfare state is so much money flows through its hands that it grows corrupt, and the temptation to ride the wagon is strong for some.

Somewhere in the middle would be better.

I'm with you, but alas, according to US Conservative, that means we both vote welfare state.
 
I voted, and I said which one I chose. Check again, if you've got access to see who voted how.

And you're going with the old "taking from some and giving to others" argument. The problem is, the ONLY way to avoid that is to have zero, precisely zero, taxes at all...and you can't have a functional nation without taxes in one form or another. Can't be done. So since we WILL have a system where there will be taxation (taking from some and giving to others), why not go with that system that works best for the most people? Like, you know, the system that has led to the highest standards of living in human history?

I think taxation is a reasonable imposition on the people, but only for the minimal functions of govt (military, emergency services, etc). However, I draw the line at where that becomes a means to transfer wealth between citizens. Do you see the distinction I make?
 
Interesting can you give some examples of minarchism ending in disaster?

Perhaps disaster was the wrong word, but name a system of monarchism that survived the ages till today. But I will say systems of government and economy that lean too far to planned do end up in disaster. Seems to me the better option is a minimal Republic style representative government over a mixed model economic system that leans market.
 
I voted, and I said which one I chose. Check again, if you've got access to see who voted how.

And you're going with the old "taking from some and giving to others" argument. The problem is, the ONLY way to avoid that is to have zero, precisely zero, taxes at all...and you can't have a functional nation without taxes in one form or another. Can't be done. So since we WILL have a system where there will be taxation (taking from some and giving to others), why not go with that system that works best for the most people? Like, you know, the system that has led to the highest standards of living in human history?

Good grief. The government didn't make this country great, people having the freedom to prosper (and yes, profit) did. We really do speak a whole other language sometimes.
 
Perhaps disaster was the wrong word, but name a system of monarchism that survived the ages till today. But I will say systems of government and economy that lean too far to planned do end up in disaster. Seems to me the better option is a minimal Republic style representative government over a mixed model economic system that leans market.

I dont see how monarchy is comparable. Does the absence of a minarchy somehow make it less valid?
 
As I see it, you are for the welfare state, apparently to an extent you find acceptable. Does that observation work for you?

If that's the way you want to see it I guess. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you do though.
 
I'm with you, but alas, according to US Conservative, that means we both vote welfare state.



Well, people often refer to me as conservative, mainly because of my position on gun rights and dislike of excessive government... but I really am a centrist.

I favor a social safety net (preferably a much more efficiently run one that we have at present, focused more on hand UP than hand-out), and some limited gov't intervention in the "free market" to prevent things like monopoly and the exploitation of desperate workers by far more powerful employers, and so on.


I just recognize that massive wealth is a form of power in itself, and those who accumulate such massive wealth and capitol can so easily steamroller those without it, that some gov't protection of the individual citizen in economic matters is as necessary as safeguarding the Bill of Rights.
 
Perhaps disaster was the wrong word, but name a system of monarchism that survived the ages till today. But I will say systems of government and economy that lean too far to planned do end up in disaster. Seems to me the better option is a minimal Republic style representative government over a mixed model economic system that leans market.

I dont see how monarchy is comparable. Does the absence of a minarchy somehow make it less valid?
 
I dont know that minarchism has been employed at the level of a nation, but I have seen the welfare state end in disaster (USSR is a prime example). Does this mean you cannot provide examples of minarchism ending in disaster?

You have yet to provide any proof that minarchism can work at all. Just saying "I know it can work!" without anything to back it up just won't do the trick. At its most basic level, government is a function of human psychology...and speaking for myself, I would support that which is PROVEN to work the best for the greatest number of people in the population.

And when it comes to the USSR, you're comparing apples and oranges...because the USSR was never a socialized democracy, whereas all the most successful nations on the planet ARE socialized democracies...including America.
 
I dont see how monarchy is comparable. Does the absence of a minarchy somehow make it less valid?

It is like saying we need a pure capitalist system of economy. By that theory the system does have an end.
 
If that's the way you want to see it I guess. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you do though.

The purpose of this poll is not to precisely pinpoint anyones views, but rather to see where they lie generally. On a spectrum, most people exist somewhere in the middle.
 
I think taxation is a reasonable imposition on the people, but only for the minimal functions of govt (military, emergency services, etc). However, I draw the line at where that becomes a means to transfer wealth between citizens. Do you see the distinction I make?

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.
 
Well, people often refer to me as conservative, mainly because of my position on gun rights and dislike of excessive government... but I really am a centrist.

I favor a social safety net (preferably a much more efficiently run one that we have at present, focused more on hand UP than hand-out), and some limited gov't intervention in the "free market" to prevent things like monopoly and the exploitation of desperate workers by far more powerful employers, and so on.


I just recognize that massive wealth is a form of power in itself, and those who accumulate such massive wealth and capitol can so easily steamroller those without it, that some gov't protection of the individual citizen in economic matters is as necessary as safeguarding the Bill of Rights.

Seems reasonable.
 
If men were angels, that is if all people were good hearted and good intentioned and worked to put their sweat where their mouth was, either would do.


The problem with a night-watchman state it is doesn't prevent the exploitation of the poor, as seen during the Industrial revolution and indeed until modern governments instituted workplace safety rules and so on.

Somewhere in the middle would be better.

Yeah, because the government would never, itself, be responsible for exploitation.

Perhaps it's not always exploitation when someone has financial success. Perhaps it's this assumption that adult people are as capable of making decisions for there own welfare as I am.
 
To an extent you do. Is that not factually correct? The issue of degree could certainly be discussed, but thats a separate issue.

Obviously, I do. But to try to force me into saying "I support the welfare state" is a dishonest means of debate.
 
You have yet to provide any proof that minarchism can work at all. Just saying "I know it can work!" without anything to back it up just won't do the trick. At its most basic level, government is a function of human psychology...and speaking for myself, I would support that which is PROVEN to work the best for the greatest number of people in the population.

And when it comes to the USSR, you're comparing apples and oranges...because the USSR was never a socialized democracy, whereas all the most successful nations on the planet ARE socialized democracies...including America.

I dont recall saying "I know it can work!" but I do support the minimal functions of govt. The welfare state has proven to be a poor solution, and my example was the USSR, where supposedly all of ones needs would be provided for.
 
Well, people often refer to me as conservative, mainly because of my position on gun rights and dislike of excessive government... but I really am a centrist.

I favor a social safety net (preferably a much more efficiently run one that we have at present, focused more on hand UP than hand-out), and some limited gov't intervention in the "free market" to prevent things like monopoly and the exploitation of desperate workers by far more powerful employers, and so on.


I just recognize that massive wealth is a form of power in itself, and those who accumulate such massive wealth and capitol can so easily steamroller those without it, that some gov't protection of the individual citizen in economic matters is as necessary as safeguarding the Bill of Rights.



Me to.



Or as I like to put it, rather than subscribe to an "ism", I simply support what works.

I think what we have in this country is a generational push, from one end to the other.
 
WTF, it's been 20 minutes and no votes for a Welfare state yet. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Well, obviously they support them dieing in the streets!
 
I reject radicalism and extremism.
 
I reject radicalism and extremism.

Well, then your in luck as the nightwatchmen state is neither radical or extreme. For that matter neither is the welfare state since most of the western world has a welfare system.
 
Good grief. The government didn't make this country great, people having the freedom to prosper (and yes, profit) did. We really do speak a whole other language sometimes.

FYI, it wasn't only 'freedom' that enabled people to prosper. It was also government-funded roads, government-funded schools, government-funded military might protecting our commerce, government-funded diplomacy smoothing the way for overseas commerce, government-funded police and fire protection, government-funded access to space for our satellites...and a LOT of government-funded regulation that gave us safer places to live and work.

YES, freedom is essential to success...but freedom by itself isn't enough. Gotta have that government-funded INFRASTRUCTURE, too. Without that strong infrastructure, you can't have real national prosperity no matter how 'free' the people may be.
 
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.

In case people didn't know there was two recessions in the fifties and one in the seventies. Just sayin'
 
Back
Top Bottom