Welfare state vs the night-watchmen state-which do you support?

Glen Contrarian · Nov 25, 2014

Declan said:
That you think what people do or do not want doesn't matter is a fundamental flaw in your logic. You probably think that computers revolutionized society as well when they did not--they just changed the way we do the things we already were doing.

You twisted my words and are not understanding their overall meaning. Look at the quote by Napoleon - if what people do or do not do didn't matter, then his quote would have been meaningless, worthless. But he was right.

And I strongly stick by what I said - while individual psychologies vary wildly, in the aggregate people really are generally the same all the world over - after allowing for local and cultural norms, of course. And no matter where they are from, if they are placed in a system that maximizes their opportunities and gives them real hope of eventual success, they will generally do much better. But if they're in a system where there is no social safety net to catch them when they fall, when they do fall, all too often they stay down...and never get back up.

That's where libertarian theory leads...and that's also a short description of life in third-world nations.

Glen Contrarian · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
Greece is simply a more advanced welfare state. Spain too. The rest just haven't caught up yet.

And you base that on what, exactly?

Your tendency to assume really is breathtaking: if a state is a socialized democracy, it must therefore sooner or later become a Greece or a USSR. And you're basing that on nothing more than "I just know it's gonna happen sooner or later."

But what you're not getting is that the great majority of the first-world democracies - all but one, if one counts Greece - have been so incredibly successful (relative to most of the rest of the world) for generations. In America's case, this sustained success has lasted for more than an normal lifetime...and for England and most of the British Commonwealth, for longer than that.

From the very beginning, there's been those who Just Know that socialized democracy is doomed to failure. For eighty years y'all have been saying that America's New Deal policies are a sure-fire way to wind up in the economic dustbin of history...

...and for eighty years you've been wrong.

Glen Contrarian · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
So a few areas that where the slight majority vote dem means they are conservative? Please, I live here-its liberal as hell.

Did you not see the map where the majority are conservative?

Look, guy, it's really simple - the more rural the region, the more likely that region is conservative. The more urban, the more liberal. This is true not just in America, but all over the world (after allowing for local and cultural norms).

Hari Seldon · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
I think it could be said that the welfare state seeks to impose equality of outcomes, despite the fact that life is inherently unequal, and that inequality of effort also is assured.

No I think that is entirely inaccurate. I think it tries to impose a floor and give as many people as possible a chance to succeed. Inequality of effort is most assured in a free society. Now in say a concentration camp, equality of effort is assured, or death.

Declan · Nov 25, 2014

ThesisQuasar said:
Then you misunderstand the use of the word "everyone" relative to the context with which it is presented. For example, The assumption that "If everyone were housed" Would create an effect of inherent stability to get a job. Sure, people can be destabilized From various emotional and social factors, but something such as guaranteed housing eliminates concerns thus creating the overall effect of less perceived stress, and more perceived stability. I use the word in a general sense. There is no naivety in thinking that each of those features provide inherent benefits. If you want to make a positive assertion that Each of these institutions wouldn't benefit society in at least a similar manner to how I suggest, then the burden of proof/rebuttal is now passed on to you. I have listed a series of reasons as to why each of those welfare institutions would lead to the effects in society I think they would very likely produce. I have even addressed the human nature argument filed under "The purpose of jobs". "Anyone can pursue their dreams without worry of financial strain. a lack of funds cannot fulfill such extra-survival activities, thus leading to extreme boredom."

In past consideration of the concept of 'human nature' I think the concept of a 'universal human nature' is a very narrow concept, as no two humans behave exactly the same. if Human Nature is to be used as an absolute, then it only applies to the ubiquitous facets of the human genome. There are many very common traits among humans - such as the will to survive, etc, But common does not mean everyone, and the concept of 'common' should never be confused with the concept of 'average'.

There is no burden on me to prove anything, especially not present a counter proposal to your flawed one. You have just proposed a system that would enable every addict in society to abuse, will promote violence when addled people get bored playing their video games in their free house with free food and free electricity, and among those "everyone", mental illness will be ramped, and even if all that were not the case, potatoes you will be giving away for free do not plant, grow, and harvest themselves.

Glen Contrarian · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
You cited it as evidence of your point, now you admit it is not. The fact the better the economic state, the more can be allocated to the poor. They aren't doing well BECAUSE they help the poor as you suggest.

And again, while I regularly provide charity for the poor (money and healthcare, here and in Mexico) I do NOT see it as the govts role to forcibly redistribute for votes to do as much.

*sigh*.

So let's let you have it your way. No more social safety net:

No more health care for children whose parent's can't afford health care for them.
No more food stamps for those who can't afford enough food to feed their families.
No more vocational rehab for the disabled so they can find work.
No more unemployment insurance to provide a cushion when somebody gets laid off.
No more free meals for poor kids at school.
No more access to health care for the poor - heck, no more automatic access to care in the emergency room, either.
No more rent assistance - if a family can't afford the rent, they're on the street and good riddance!
No more taxpayer-funded job search assistance - if you can't find a job, tough luck.
No more taxpayer-funded job training - if you can't afford to pay for the training, tough luck.
No more taxpayer-funded assistance for the disabled - if they can't afford a wheelchair, they can crawl!
No more taxpayer-funded access to nursing homes - if they can't afford the nursing home, out on the street they go!
No more taxpayer-funded vaccinations - if you catch measles, tough luck - just die quickly so you don't spread it to others.

Shall I go on?

There was a commercial for Quaker State (or was it Pennzoil) back in the 1970's. In the commercial, the mechanic points out what happens when someone doesn't get their oil changed regularly, and shows the cost of oil changes as compared to what happens without those oil changes. The famous quote from that commercial was, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later."

And so it goes with the social safety net - you can pay for it now...or you can pay for what happens because it's not there. But either way, you will pay.

ThesisQuasar · Nov 25, 2014

Declan said:
There is no burden on me to prove anything, especially not present a counter proposal to your flawed one. You have just proposed a system that would enable every addict in society to abuse, will promote violence when addled people get bored playing their video games in their free house with free food and free electricity, and among those "everyone", mental illness will be ramped, and even if all that were not the case, potatoes you will be giving away for free do not plant, grow, and harvest themselves.

First of all, your straw-mans are unjustified and unappreciated:

Declan said:
You have just proposed a system that would enable every addict in society to abuse, will promote violence when addled people get bored playing their video games in their free house with free food and free electricity, and among those "everyone", mental illness will be ramped[/I]"

1. Where did I suggest anyone would receive free electricity?

2. Where will people get the money to become an addict if they don't have a source of income?

3. Why should mental illness have to become rampant if there are services to take care of that?

4. Where will people get the money to buy new games to play without a source of income?

Declan said:
"potatoes you will be giving away for free do not plant, grow, and harvest themselves"

I never made such a claim. How does anything I suggested in my post automatically imply that nobody will "Plant, grow and harvest things? As I said, Burden of proof.

Declan said:
"There is no burden on me to prove anything, especially not present a counter proposal to your flawed one."

Isn't calling it flawed a claim in itself? I never suggested you had to provide a 'counter-proposal', in fact that would be a red-herring. You simply have to show that what you're claiming as a positive, particularly in this case (to paraphrase) that my proposal is flawed, is true, especially since you asserted it. One who makes a claim, should have justifications for that claim.

1750Texan · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
I think it could be said that the welfare state seeks to impose equality of outcomes, despite the fact that life is inherently unequal, and that inequality of effort also is assured.

What example do we have to compare a welfare state to a night-watchman state? We have had two versions of the welfare state, but when did we have in our history a night-watchman style of governance...and more importantly a N-W form of government in which you claim all had access to government?

KevinKohler · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
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.

You are incorrect. The government creates plenty of jobs. Does the road need to be cleaned up in an area with unemployment? Does the road need to be repaired ain an area with unemployment? Are bridges falling apart? Are parks closing early due to a lack of staff?

Pretty much, there are a lot of public services we NEED, but are not deemed DIRE enough to spend our limited budget on. Well, guess what? We're already spending our limited budget on unemployment. Why not put these people to work on some of these tasks, and have them learn a new skill (like how to pave a road or fill potholes)?

The answer? Because it would interfere with some local politician's sweet gig of doling that work out to companies HE is invested in.

DA60 · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
More reading can be found at the provided links. Please read them and using the provided definitions vote.

Welfare state vs the night-watchmen state-which do you support?

Why do you refuse to include Americans other then righties or lefties?

I guess you cannot think of minorities as equals.

US Conservative · Nov 25, 2014

Glen Contrarian said:
*sigh*.

So let's let you have it your way. No more social safety net:

No more health care for children whose parent's can't afford health care for them.
No more food stamps for those who can't afford enough food to feed their families.
No more vocational rehab for the disabled so they can find work.
No more unemployment insurance to provide a cushion when somebody gets laid off.
No more free meals for poor kids at school.
No more access to health care for the poor - heck, no more automatic access to care in the emergency room, either.
No more rent assistance - if a family can't afford the rent, they're on the street and good riddance!
No more taxpayer-funded job search assistance - if you can't find a job, tough luck.
No more taxpayer-funded job training - if you can't afford to pay for the training, tough luck.
No more taxpayer-funded assistance for the disabled - if they can't afford a wheelchair, they can crawl!
No more taxpayer-funded access to nursing homes - if they can't afford the nursing home, out on the street they go!
No more taxpayer-funded vaccinations - if you catch measles, tough luck - just die quickly so you don't spread it to others.

Shall I go on?

There was a commercial for Quaker State (or was it Pennzoil) back in the 1970's. In the commercial, the mechanic points out what happens when someone doesn't get their oil changed regularly, and shows the cost of oil changes as compared to what happens without those oil changes. The famous quote from that commercial was, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later."

And so it goes with the social safety net - you can pay for it now...or you can pay for what happens because it's not there. But either way, you will pay.

An appeal to emotion.

Glen Contrarian · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
An appeal to emotion.

An empty stomach isn't a matter of emotion...especially in the eyes of the parent who's trying to raise that child.

You can call them 'appeals to emotion' all you want, but each and every one of those examples I gave aren't matters of emotion - they're precisely what would happen if we got rid of the social safety net...and then we'd get to see why third-world nations are the way they are.

ThesisQuasar · Nov 25, 2014

DA60 said:
Why do you refuse to include Americans other then righties or lefties?

I guess you cannot think of minorities as equals.

US Conservative has a likely tendency to think in exceptionally narrow Dichotomies, as evidenced by his poll (I still have yet to determine the scale of the narrowness in itself). He relies on a 1-dimensional view of politics to inform his view of the political landscape, when in reality the landscape can be defined as 2-dimensional, and even 3-Dimensional.

This is an extremely Narrow and false view of politics:

When this view of politics is vastly more accurate and diverse:

and this one even more so:

If US conservative would take the time to consider possibilities outside of his narrow, limited and current perceptions, he could grow his overall perspective to be much more advanced, well-informed, and considerate. That goes for anyone how likes to view things without much of a decent perspective or context.

ThesisQuasar · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
An appeal to emotion.

This is an example of his narrow capacity to consider things. He never considered the possibility that the post he was attacking could be based on a set of principles rather than just raw emotion. He has also failed to consider that one can be emotional and rational at the same time. For example, when people get angry at a rapist and say it's wrong to rape people in their anger.

US Conservative · Nov 25, 2014

This thread isn't a liberal cry fest, kindly take it elsewhere.

a351 · Nov 25, 2014

US Conservative said:
How did man ever get by without big govt?

Not worth answering rhetorical questions.

And govts can't be moral because govts aren't people, but systems.

Government, on behalf of the people it represents, can fulfill a moral good, and it often does so in a coercive manner. Ending slavery with bloodshed fulfilled a moral good, as does redistributing wealth so as to ensure that the physically and mentally disabled are not cast aside as they once were. Many morals enshrined into law ( child pornography, sex slavery and so on) could not be enforced on by mere individuals, but only with a state acting on their behalf.

US Conservative · Nov 25, 2014

a351 said:
Not worth answering rhetorical questions.

Government, on behalf of the people it represents, can fulfill a moral good, and it often does so in a coercive manner. Ending slavery with bloodshed fulfilled a moral good, as does redistributing wealth so as to ensure that the physically and mentally disabled are not cast aside as they once were. Many morals enshrined into law ( child pornography, sex slavery and so on) could not be enforced on by mere individuals, but only with a state acting on their behalf.

Law enforcement is a legitimate function of govt though. Coerced redistribution not so much.

Federalist · Nov 25, 2014

haymarket said:
Sadly, when people espouse your views but their own actions say the opposite, what you claim you advocate for and recommend is irrelevant since it has no credibility.

I am not buying your argument for policies that initiate aggression against my fellow Americans. I hold that the initiation of aggression is wrong. I know that you wish to use violence to violate the the person and property of your fellow man, but you cannot provide me a justification for joining your side and advocating this. I am going to continue my opposition to the welfare state due to the fact that it depends upon the violation of other's property.

haymarket · Nov 25, 2014

Federalist said:
I am not buying your argument for policies that initiate aggression against my fellow Americans. I hold that the initiation of aggression is wrong. I know that you wish to use violence to violate the the person and property of your fellow man, but you cannot provide me a justification for joining your side and advocating this. I am going to continue my opposition to the welfare state due to the fact that it depends upon the violation of other's property.

All you will continue to do is what you have done so far - make pompous personal pontifications of what you pretend to believe in and then live a life doing the opposite.

ThesisQuasar · Nov 26, 2014

US Conservative said:
This thread isn't a liberal cry fest, kindly take it elsewhere.

I think you probably just don't want to address the aspects of your methodology that I criticized. and why did you just now straw man me? Your response is yet another example of precisely what I'm referring to. This thread is about Economic issues, not social issues. Liberalism is an ideology simply in relation to social issues. So either you are using a wrong definition of the word "liberal", or you have deluded yourself into the presumption that I'm a liberal, even though you have no way of discerning in this thread whether I'm liberal or conservative (As both of those ideologies only strictly relate to social issues on the political spectrum). I could almost create a new fallacy out of this: Appeal to perception, where the perception itself is built on even more fallacies and/or ignorance.

Federalist · Nov 26, 2014

haymarket said:
All you will continue to do is what you have done so far - make pompous personal pontifications of what you pretend to believe in and then live a life doing the opposite.

Completely unconvincing. I am still not buying your argument in support of policies that initiate aggression against my fellow Americans. I am going to continue to recommend the elimination of the welfare state.

haymarket · Nov 26, 2014

Federalist said:
Completely unconvincing. I am still not buying your argument in support of policies that initiate aggression against my fellow Americans. I am going to continue to recommend the elimination of the welfare state.

I am NOT trying to convince you Federalist. Not in the slightest. I know better than to try to convert a true believer who is deep in their own self imposed belief system. You only pretend to take that stand in forums like this while in your real life you take advantage of and use the very results of state power that you pretend to condemn and be opposed to do. You say one thing while doing the opposite.

So who is the real Federalist - the one with the personal pontifications that say one thing or the one with the opposite actions that say quite a different thing?

Actions speak louder than words is wisdom that can be found from many people said in many ways. It is by your actual actions that we find out what you truly believe.

Lovebug · Nov 26, 2014

Glen Contrarian said:
Problem is, while the 'welfare state' is a reality and it has resulted in the highest standard of living on the planet, there is precisely no example - whether now or at any time in history - of a 'night watchmen state' bringing a high standard of living to the population.

In other words, one's a reality and the other's a fantasy.

Thing is, with the 'night watchmen state', it would work just fine...IF everyone thought the same way, had the same levels of ability, had the same degree of opportunity. But this is humanity we're talking about - and while the welfare state is designed to handle the whole range of differences in the human experience, the 'night watchmen state' is not.

Sums it up nicely.
Nothing for me to vote. We are missing the option "American, other"

Federalist · Nov 26, 2014

haymarket said:
I am NOT trying to convince you Federalist. Not in the slightest. I know better than to try to convert a true believer who is deep in their own self imposed belief system. You only pretend to take that stand in forums like this while in your real life you take advantage of and use the very results of state power that you pretend to condemn and be opposed to do. You say one thing while doing the opposite.

So who is the real Federalist - the one with the personal pontifications that say one thing or the one with the opposite actions that say quite a different thing?

Actions speak louder than words is wisdom that can be found from many people said in many ways. It is by your actual actions that we find out what you truly believe.

You must be trying to convince someone to accept your recommendations for ever increasing levels of government aggression. If you're not trying to convince me, then perhaps the audience?

Nevertheless, I'm not buying it. Your ad homs aside, you can't convince me of your stance that it's good to violate the person or property of my fellow Americans. I say that it's wrong to initiate aggression against others, whether or not one is a voter or a government functionary.

Thus, I continue to recommend for the elimination of the welfare state.

haymarket · Nov 26, 2014

Federalist said:
You must be trying to convince someone to accept your recommendations for ever increasing levels of government aggression. .

My recommendations!?!?!?!? I have no idea what you are ranting about and I suspect neither do you as you failed to present anything.

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.

Im a left leaning American, Welfare state.

Im not American, Welfare state.

Im a right leaning American, Night-watchmen state.

Im a left leaning American, Night-watchmen state.

Im not American, Night-watchmen state.

Stable Genius

Member

Member

Member

#NeverTrump

Member

Be humble and kind