This is why social welfare fails.
"I'd prefer that individuals were the true owners of wealth, rather than states. But if my only two choices are "wealth in the hands of many separate states" and "wealth in the hands of a hegemonic international ursury," I'd choose the former. Means to an end, kwim. I don't see the left/right paradigm the way you do. If we agree the far left is an anti-individualist movement seeking unequal rights favoring certain groups (as I think you'd agree), then the far right would be an anti-individualist movement seeking unequal rights favoring the opposite groups - that is, fighting fire with fire. In this way I see myself as an extreme centrist - not perfectly extreme, as I have a light and probably unavoidable bias towards some groups I'm a member of, but I try to be as center as possible. Problem is, most people don't mean centrist in terms of absolute left and absolte right, but instead in terms of the current, arbitrary position of the Overton Window. Most of such people are unthinking balast who will follow consensus like the sheep they are. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted. Last edited by ScrotieMcB on May 22, 2018, 4:39:45 AM
|
|
|
Rant ahead... :)
" The left/right is an outdated concept. I use these words because they are short and somewhat understood. The far left is ironically a tool of the globalists, even tho they are supposedly anti-capitalist or something. You don't see the current far left protesting against war or for worker rights, no, you only see them attacking nationalism and supporting open borders (= lowering wages = the far left is actually harming worker interests). The far right in USA, at least as I understand it, is a product of systemic anti-white, anti-male identity politics coming from the "progressive left". It's an expected reactionary response to leftist class warfare. In Europe it's slightly different, the far right is mostly a reaction to opening the floodgates to unwanted mass immigration, which I regard as an act of violence toward the native population. Currently the important divide, imo, is more about globalists vs nationalists. Globalists are big money elites, they want open borders (or shipping industry abroad - to the same effect of lowering cost of labour), they shill for so called diversity and multiculturalism, but in reality they want to create a mono-cultural consumerist society and national / religious / cultural... identities are an obstacle to that. Globalists also favor progressivism and all sorts of degeneracy, as a mean of deconstructing and divide&conquer a society. Nationalists (or identitarians) otoh, want to preserve the cultural / ethnic / historical / racial identity of a country, thus preserving true diversity of humanity. The interests of corporations and GDP growth should be secondary to the health & cohesion of the country. Borders represent stability and should be enforced. Your taxpayer interests should always come before foreign interests. --- Individualism is a tricky thing to balance. The West has put individualism on a pedestal and in the process forgot that you have to protect the culture (=the collective) which favors individualism, against cultures that favor collectivism. In this way individualism is an enemy of itself - an atomized society is easy prey for collectivizing enemy forces, who then have no opposition and start knocking down statues and writing retarded laws... I think individualism is a great idea - in peace time. But we are not in peace time, we are at war with cultural marxism, which is trying to erase everything healthy that created and maintained the European civilization (which USA is an inheritor of). And in this case it would be really stupid for the people which are under assault, to not collectivize against a collectivizing enemy. --- My problem with centrism (or "moderation") is that is prone to being assimilated or taken over. Eg. progressivism is constantly trying to push things toward some unspecified "progress" without an end goal, while conservatism is perfectly fine with things as they are now. If as a conservative you then compromise with progressivism, it means that you end up with progressivism anyway, just at a slower pace. Some fundamental concepts in society should be non negotiable. Like, what is a family and what is its purpose, or how many genders are there. Centrist politics have become establishment status-quo garbage. Center-left / center-right in Europe are both the same corporate backed thing with cosmetic differences. Same with Neocon/Neolib. Only "extremist" politicians (eg. Trump, Sanders, Farage, Orban..) create real change (for the better or for worse). When night falls She cloaks the world In impenetrable darkness Last edited by morbo on May 22, 2018, 6:48:47 AM
| |
|
uhm not really. When ya start cutting taxes and give it to the rich, the lil guy suffers in the end. When we come to a point family can't even get 3 square meals a day. You're gonna see some changes.
/openslawnchair. |
|
|
"This is why social welfare fails."
In Europe there are many social states and in fact it works very good. For example in Denmark (if remember well) citizens pay 70% of their wage to state. Difference in salary is 0.7 - 1.4. So doctor and hamburger guy can buy more or less same stuff and are rising children together and have same quality of services. There are more countries like that where people create country and no vice versa. Last time it was Island who put into jail their representatives from parliament because they put country into debt. Socialism as thinking/mentality is rather flat and not hierarchic. They have values created from them by them and not exploiting each other and other countries, which is typical for hierarchic model (governments, religions.. cults overall). In that way people are not afraid and can live together, are not ashamed but are trustworthy, and take decision which are good for next generations. USA type governments (or some type of religion) will most likely never understand what social stuff brings as most people in USA and similar countries lives in "survival" mode with debts and in hierarchic mentality (or fear of loosing some benefits before others in afterlife world...). Last edited by Rexeos on May 22, 2018, 10:17:21 AM
| |
|
If doctors and hamburger guys made the same pay, in the USA, we wouldn't be able to attract foreign doctors. And almost all doctors in the USA are foreign nowadays.
We would be in big trouble. | |
|
I'm losing brain cells each moment reading this thread.
Fearmongering, ignorance, general mindwashing.. more fearmongering, fearmongering that is based on lies which makes it a massive joke when you know better and very sad to behold. It's sad to behold the state of the world that this is what has overtaken people in this age of selfishness and shortsightedness. The state without socialistic aspects will be the worst trash of a country to live in. The country without capitalistic aspects will be like so, too. You need both. And you need very strong socialistic aspects in order to drive the culture to the highest peaks. You see the thing is the welfare state pulls up the broken in society so that they contribute to society. Additionally the most successful welfare states have some of the best statistics in all areas including economics, safety, trust, unemployment, corruption etc. Statistics relating to society as a whole are dominated by welfare states because it's the superior form of government. The united states scores mediocrily for example, despite being the place in the world which probably pulls the most profit from the rest of the world through entertainment and other culture. Despite the rest of the world having to spend enormous resources on helping all the people suffering from the united states killing and attacking as they please immorally and against international law(but no one stops them). Despite all of this, because your shitty primitive stone age systems you cannot even pull your own country up. It's a joke to hear you come here with these shitty arguments. TV in america has taken brainwashing to a whole new level, no one can see clear anymore in the united states it seems because its just one big mud pool. It seems now it has because about extremism, dividing into parts and choosing sides but real results come when you forget about all that bias and listen to the arguments from both sides in order to obtain the optimal solution. The most developed civilized countries(civilization is culture as opposed to selfish beast mentality) are welfare states. Welfare states that rely on theoretical output such as research, design or lifestyle, as opposed to hard labour like third world countries. I come from one of those countries, and we probably have the best country in the world where i am from because exactly of the welfare state. You have no idea how good we have it or how thought through our society is, how many of the issues you deal with are ironed out. How it's aspects have been developed to mobilize and reinforce the labour force, destroy social injusticies that leaves individuals destroyed an unable to contribute to society and protect all citizens from economic instability also in relation to old age. How much your systems look like primitive stone age systems in comparison. Not only that but proper welfare system only exists in the most societies where human values are the most advanced(this again is a restatement of in the most by definition civilized countries). Welfare states are world leaders in ethics and moral. You have nothing on us, we outclass your systems by a thousand miles. I see a few people for example one was saying he is from Italy and it's prime example of why it fails. Italy isn't anywhere close to a developed welfare state but full of corruption and foolish foolish shit. This system needs a lot of improvement. These are the types of examples you base your brainwashing on. It can be summed up in one word: "Ignorance", the lack of knowledge to know any better leaves you to make uninformed statements from your fearmongering. The funny thing is only the richest benefit from suppressing the welfare state(at the disproportionally huge cost of everyone else) but they brainwashed even the poor and the common man into believing it is best for all. Big joke, so sad. You do not even comprehend the premise of the welfare state. See if you think welfare state is just about opening the pockets like some fool and let anyone in them you are wrong to the highest extend. When holes like that are in welfare states they need to be closed as they go against the goal of the welfare state to pull society up and further the economic and social development. I am the light of the morning and the shadow on the wall, I am nothing and I am all. Last edited by Crackmonster on May 22, 2018, 3:15:34 PM
|
|
" It's actually the other way around. Countries with a high culture, high cohesion, high trust, low corruption, low crime, good economy... can have a successful welfare state. A successful welfare state is a consequence of a successful healthy society, that doesn't leak resources all over the place. You can't legislate it into existence, you need all those prerequisite conditions and USA fails in most of them, with the exception of good economy and maybe lower corruption. So its pointless scolding them why don't they magically create Scandinavia out of Detroit. It's simply impossible to apply the same model of eg. Norway to something like California, riddled with crime, domestic & foreign gangs, ghettos, illegals, homeless, druggies... When night falls
She cloaks the world In impenetrable darkness | |
" You understand the USA better than most Americans. Its weird how people here dont get this stuff, even though they live in it. Last edited by Khoranth on May 22, 2018, 11:28:16 AM
| |
" Welcome mat for who? Is that Mexicans? | |
" Actually i avoided writing what you write now. I had it written but removed it as redundant. The fuller argument there is that if you do not already have a culture that is approaching enough cultural advancement to support the high advancement that is a welfare state it will not work well. The reason i excluded that was that it is still the natural development when cultures mature enough in order to reach even higher advancement. Go study the history of courses as to why many of the aspects of the welfare state were developed and you'll see that it's not just because everything was already working to that purpose but in order to further advance and improve society with specific things like the ones i mentioned: "How it's aspects have been developed to mobilize and reinforce the labour force, destroy social injusticies that leaves individuals destroyed an unable to contribute to society and protect all citizens from economic instability also in relation to old age." And thats when our society took even higher heights. Because of the welfare state. But it cannot work if people do not believe in it because it takes democracy to make these changes. So i excluded it because i wanted to communicate a clearer argument that more directly disproves lots of nonsense in this thread without making it too complicated. But i feel what you are saying there. You see you don't always need to walk people in babysteps all the way, sometimes painting a stellar example of the eventual goal serves better to break illusions. The babysteps will be swallowed by the mud of the american debates in my opinion. I prefer to communicate ideas. I am the light of the morning and the shadow on the wall, I am nothing and I am all. Last edited by Crackmonster on May 22, 2018, 1:10:51 PM
|
|
