• 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

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?
 
There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

Could you identify these first world democracies for us?? I'm struggling to find any first (or second, third, fourth) world nations that are democracies, so I can't really reply without some context as to which nations you're referring to.
 
Could you identify these first world democracies for us?? I'm struggling to find any first (or second, third, fourth) world nations that are democracies, so I can't really reply without some context as to which nations you're referring to.

He is misusing Democracy :) as you knew ;).


But the interesting thing here is the stretchy definition of the word "Socialism". A hundred dollars to a nickel says that if someone tried to point to Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. as evidence that socialism is economically destructive, he would insist on the No True Socialism fallacy, defining it as strictly as possible. But here, apparently, Socialism can be interpreted as broadly as possible, even to the bland "a welfare safety net".
 
Could you identify these first world democracies for us?? I'm struggling to find any first (or second, third, fourth) world nations that are democracies, so I can't really reply without some context as to which nations you're referring to.

In other words, you're wanting to quibble over semantics of the word 'democracy'.

You know very well what I mean, so I will not play your game. You can look up what nations are first-world for yourself. You can see what the non-OPEC first-world nations have in common...and then try to compare the results that you find to what conservative dogma tries to tell you about economics.
 
He is misusing Democracy :) as you knew ;).


But the interesting thing here is the stretchy definition of the word "Socialism". A hundred dollars to a nickel says that if someone tried to point to Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. as evidence that socialism is economically destructive, he would insist on the No True Socialism fallacy, defining it as strictly as possible. But here, apparently, Socialism can be interpreted as broadly as possible, even to the bland "a welfare safety net".

But what you're missing is that the nations you listed were in all cases NOT socialist states, but were DICTATORSHIPS...and dictatorship in and of itself is usually bad for an economy. They were all dictatorships that had some socialist programs...but the corruption that always comes with dictatorship is what ruined their economies.
 
In other words, you're wanting to quibble over semantics of the word 'democracy'.

You know very well what I mean, so I will not play your game. You can look up what nations are first-world for yourself. You can see what the non-OPEC first-world nations have in common...and then try to compare the results that you find to what conservative dogma tries to tell you about economics.

Words matter we're not a democracy. That word has specific meaning.

Law and argument hinges on semantics, one has to know what you're talking about to effectively discuss it
 
He is misusing Democracy :) as you knew ;).


But the interesting thing here is the stretchy definition of the word "Socialism". A hundred dollars to a nickel says that if someone tried to point to Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. as evidence that socialism is economically destructive, he would insist on the No True Socialism fallacy, defining it as strictly as possible. But here, apparently, Socialism can be interpreted as broadly as possible, even to the bland "a welfare safety net".
I'm guessing you've never actually talked to a socialist.
 
He is misusing Democracy :) as you knew ;).


But the interesting thing here is the stretchy definition of the word "Socialism". A hundred dollars to a nickel says that if someone tried to point to Cuba, the USSR, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. as evidence that socialism is economically destructive, he would insist on the No True Socialism fallacy, defining it as strictly as possible. But here, apparently, Socialism can be interpreted as broadly as possible, even to the bland "a welfare safety net".

Difference between a hard socialist state ad a soft one. Kind of like when people point to Scandinavia as a cluster of socialist states and conservTives won't accept that argument.
 
Words matter we're not a democracy. That word has specific meaning.

Law and argument hinges on semantics, one has to know what you're talking about to effectively discuss it

Just like the other guy, you're wanting to quibble about semantics in order to avoid answering the question...

...because you know down deep in your gut that the obvious answer would force you to go against conservative dogma.
 
In other words, you're wanting to quibble over semantics of the word 'democracy'.

You know very well what I mean, so I will not play your game. You can look up what nations are first-world for yourself. You can see what the non-OPEC first-world nations have in common...and then try to compare the results that you find to what conservative dogma tries to tell you about economics.

As used, both "Democracy" and "Socialist" are grossly incorrect terms and I dislike them being used in such a manner. It allows the user to take a shortcut to being able to defend their position, since it allows the user to re-interpret the terms as they see fit. You set forth some parameters for discussion, but some of the primary ones are poorly used and done so in such a way as to allow you to define them "on the fly" to counter arguments against your point. This isn't semantics, it's wanting clear parameters for discussion. It's wanting all of us to be on the same page, using the same terms to mean the same thing, so that we can have an intelligent discussion, instead of one that gets to get redefined at will.
 
Because Democracy is a stepping stone to Socialism.
 
Just like the other guy, you're wanting to quibble about semantics in order to avoid answering the question...

...because you know down deep in your gut that the obvious answer would force you to go against conservative dogma.

Correction though, I'm not a conservative. Nor did I disagree materially with any points you made. However the democracy thing is a pet peeve of mine, because I am very well read in US history
 
I think it's very rare that there are true anarchist out there (even though there may be a couple around here)...Or true Facists/ Dictatorship--ists...

Most people believe in at least a little of the term you are using to describe any sort of central government intervention. But, I am afraid the way you are using "socialized" is too broad. People don't really like calling themselves socialist just because they believe in some sort of central government... because the term usually means something much different.
 
There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
False.

(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
True. And NO first-world nations at all meet the socialist demands of zero capitalism, massive government, high taxes, and heavy regulation. They are all more capitalist than not.

(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.
False.
 
There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?
But to attempt to somewhat answer your question,
Humans want power, and they want "stuff"...especially if they don't have to do anything for it.
Government is a great way for a human to obtain power. In china the best jobs are the government jobs... because you get to have tons of benefits and influence, you can help the people you want to help, you can get the people you care about jobs, and you get to have more connections that expands your power.... mostly at the expense of others who don't have such government connections. Government is especially vulnerable to human greed, both from within and out... the more power, the more corruption.

Government is also inherently less efficient. Like above... the only motivation a government agency has is to obtain more power and influence so they can have more funding. There is no competition to drive the agency to do a better job and to "stay in business". Lack of doing a good job just means it needs more funding.

These are just two inherent flaws in a government run structure... and they are big ones. They also result in constant attempting to obtain for power or to get more benefits... There are a lot of reasons why a lot of governments have socialistic tendencies, one of them is the above(it's a natural progression of power and benefits), others are history(I would argue deeps roots in Monarchy in Europe as lead to the government structures of today there), etc

As a American libertarian, I accept a central government is necessary. And I accept that a lot of government programs are necessary, like environment protection. But I also propose much different solutions to a lot of problems a socialist might suggest... solutions that promote competition, promote personal responsibility, freedom and limit monopolies and oligopolies.... and much of them require reducing governments power in a lot of areas and strengthening it in some.
 
False.


True. And NO first-world nations at all meet the socialist demands of zero capitalism, massive government, high taxes, and heavy regulation. They are all more capitalist than not.


False.

When you say "false", you should show precisely how it is that there are any first-world democracies who do not have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation. AND you should show how there are any nations that DO have small government, low effective taxes, and weak (or no) regulation are not third-world nations.

And btw - did I say that first-world nations ARE socialist? No. They are socialized democracies, meaning that they ALL have integrated into their governments programs which are socialist in nature. My points stand.
 
But to attempt to somewhat answer your question,
Humans want power, and they want "stuff"...especially if they don't have to do anything for it.
Government is a great way for a human to obtain power. In china the best jobs are the government jobs... because you get to have tons of benefits and influence, you can help the people you want to help, you can get the people you care about jobs, and you get to have more connections that expands your power.... mostly at the expense of others who don't have such government connections. Government is especially vulnerable to human greed, both from within and out... the more power, the more corruption.

Government is also inherently less efficient. Like above... the only motivation a government agency has is to obtain more power and influence so they can have more funding. There is no competition to drive the agency to do a better job and to "stay in business". Lack of doing a good job just means it needs more funding.

These are just two inherent flaws in a government run structure... and they are big ones. They also result in constant attempting to obtain for power or to get more benefits... There are a lot of reasons why a lot of governments have socialistic tendencies, one of them is the above(it's a natural progression of power and benefits), others are history(I would argue deeps roots in Monarchy in Europe as lead to the government structures of today there), etc

As a American libertarian, I accept a central government is necessary. And I accept that a lot of government programs are necessary, like environment protection. But I also propose much different solutions to a lot of problems a socialist might suggest... solutions that promote competition, promote personal responsibility, freedom and limit monopolies and oligopolies.... and much of them require reducing governments power in a lot of areas and strengthening it in some.

I understand what you're trying to say - I really do. All I'm doing, though, is pointing out what has already happened. If, as conservative dogma claims, the socialist programs that are now an integral part of our governments were so bad for our economies, then why are our economies the best in recorded human history? I'm not asking for rhetoric - I'm asking those who oppose the social programs to explain why it is that, if programs such as Medicare, free public schools, and so forth are SO bad for a nation's economy, why it is that all the most successful democracies on the planet - the 'first-world democracies' - are the same ones that have had those socialist programs for multiple generations?

Please explain their success in the face of what conservative (and libertarian) dogma claims should have happened.
 
There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

The premise of the OP is quite obviously and observably false. America was the first and original first-world nation, and for a very long time, by far the greatest example of such, and we did not become so by pursuing destructive socialist/statist/collectivist polices, but by rejecting and rebelling against such policies. To the degree that America has declined away from its former status as the preeminent first-world-nation, this decline has been driven almost entirely by our foolish adoption of these sort of policies. The end result of such policies can most clearly be seen in the history of the Союз Советских Социалистических Республик and its ultimate collapse—not exactly the epitome of a thriving first-world nation.
 
But what you're missing is that the nations you listed were in all cases NOT socialist states, but were DICTATORSHIPS...and dictatorship in and of itself is usually bad for an economy. They were all dictatorships that had some socialist programs...but the corruption that always comes with dictatorship is what ruined their economies.

Power corrupts. Giving government more power only leads to a more corrupt and destructive government.
 
When you say "false", you should show precisely how it is that there are any first-world democracies who do not have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation. AND you should show how there are any nations that DO have small government, low effective taxes, and weak (or no) regulation are not third-world nations.

And btw - did I say that first-world nations ARE socialist? No. They are socialized democracies, meaning that they ALL have integrated into their governments programs which are socialist in nature. My points stand.

How do Luxembourg or Switzerland do as advanced societies?
 
When you say "false", you should show precisely how it is that there are any first-world democracies who do not have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation. AND you should show how there are any nations that DO have small government, low effective taxes, and weak (or no) regulation are not third-world nations.

And btw - did I say that first-world nations ARE socialist? No. They are socialized democracies, meaning that they ALL have integrated into their governments programs which are socialist in nature. My points stand.
None of your points stand. Those economies that are most economically free tend to be the wealthiest, and those that are least economically free tend to be the poorest.
 
There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

It's in how First World vs. Third world is defined. It's a flexible definition, and usually "first world" automatically includes the US and Britain.
 
I understand what you're trying to say - I really do. All I'm doing, though, is pointing out what has already happened. If, as conservative dogma claims, the socialist programs that are now an integral part of our governments were so bad for our economies, then why are our economies the best in recorded human history? I'm not asking for rhetoric - I'm asking those who oppose the social programs to explain why it is that, if programs such as Medicare, free public schools, and so forth are SO bad for a nation's economy, why it is that all the most successful democracies on the planet - the 'first-world democracies' - are the same ones that have had those socialist programs for multiple generations?

Please explain their success in the face of what conservative (and libertarian) dogma claims should have happened.
Such economies were the best before the implementation of such programs, and remain so only in spite of them not because of them.
 
I'm guessing you've never actually talked to a socialist.

:) Sure. Talk to them here on the forum, in real life, I also read their works.


I'm guessing you are now going to adopt the No True Socialist Fallacy to explain that those socialists aren't real socialists, socialism is a magical unicorn that poops leprechauns and access to the means of production for everyone, and have never been found, which is why none of Socialisms' failures can be held against it :).
 
There are three observations:

(1) ALL first-world democracies are generally socialized, and have big government, high effective taxes, and strong regulation, whereas
(2) NO first-world nations at all meet the conservative demands of zero socialism, small government, low taxes, and weak (if any) regulation. And
(3) ALL nations which DO have small governments, low taxes, and weak regulations ARE third-world nations.

If including socialist programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Head Start, free public schools and the like are (as conservative pundits claim) a sure way to the economic dustbin of history, why is it that America (and the British Commonwealth before us) started down this road eighty years ago (FDR's New Deal) and we've been the most successful nations in human history? Is it just an accident or coincidence? Or does the inclusion of such socialist programs actually contribute to a nation's economic health?

It is, of course, relatively expensive to maintain the rules of complex societies. But probably government spending in democracies is too high because they require some adjustments. They allow governments to do many things that are not public goods, because they sound like things governments should do though economics says governments do them badly.
 
Back
Top Bottom