Homogeneity allows for more progressive policy. T/F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Singapore and Switzerland are not homogeneous.

And they are progressive.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:Internationally.....whole different level of hate gos on. Try being a Filipina in Korea. And hell the Brits still hate the Irish and they share the same pigment.

Sorry if I have higher expectations of our country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

This portion of your question is both extremely provocative and not credible, so I can't provide an answer.

Can you point to examples of sustainable socialism outside of nordic countries?

And before anyone says canada, uk, australia, or other western european countries please check their demographic mixes before writing.

I think this is a very uncomfortable topic to explore because it will inform what exactly is the achievable by progressives in this country.

It seems that the examples as well as the sociological micro data (how humans interact with those that are similar vs. different) point to a certain correlation.

Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, Canada all have larger foreign-born populations as a percentage than we do. And obviously we haven't failed yet.

Interesting that you used 'foreign-born' specifically instead of general race. have you been to these countries? Other than NZ, the rest are way whiter than the US (canada is close, but still statistically whiter). Switzerland has tons of foreign born expats from the US and germany, uk, and western europe working for a few years before leaving. I worked in zurich for two years - even most of the expats in zurich, zug, lucerne are all 'white' even if the hail from the US, munich, london or northern italy.

Aus and Can have lots of UK expats due to being commonwealth countries.

where did i ever say anything about failing? I talked about sustainable and successful progressive policies, which you are joking if include us in the class of the nordics.

Racially, we aren't really that diverse. We are 12.8% black and 4% Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Singapore and Switzerland are not homogeneous.

Singapore is not very democratic - has some progressive policy, but achieves it through single-party iron fisted rule. EIU and other watchdogs/raters rate it as semi-authoritarian.

so i guess you can 'force' progressive policy/agenda on a multi-cultural populus through force?

This is what LKY, the 'father' of singapore and defacto ruler for decades said once when asked about immigration by Charlie rose:

Lee Kuan Yew: "Absolutely … But, mind you, immigration of the highly intelligent and highly hard-working, very hard-working people. If you get immigration from the fruit-pickers [chuckles for several seconds at the idea], you may not get very far!"

Regarding switzerland, are people really trying to convince someone who lived in switzerland for two years that they have the racial demographics that we do? really?

Are you considering french-swiss around geneva to be completely different (like hispanics vs. african americans or asian-americans) to german-swiss in zurich and the italian-swiss in the southeastern parts of the country?

furthermore more, many foreign born in switzerland never achieve citizenship. They do naturalize a huge number, but the percentage rates are far from US break down.

I like the US multi-cultural society btw. Switzerland is WAY too white.

Put it this way, if hart-cellar never passed in 1965, would we have single payer, a much higher minimum wage, higher marginal tax rates/VAT, more social justice, etc?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big liberal here. I would be willing to accept the hypothesis that people are often more inclined to help one of their own, and therefore liberalism often flourishes in homogeneous societies

I believe that progressive policies flourish in times/places of plenty. People are willing to share when they are flush. When resources become more scarce, people start to become more protective of their own. So they fight for lower taxes, less public assistance.... they even want regressive policies on affirmative action, workplace rights for women, etc. etc. Kind of like what we are living now.

It would seem in the last financial crisis, this divide was partisan and not racial or cultural. We elected a President who promised to raise taxes on the wealthy, and a bunch of wealthy white people voted for him. I don't think white Democrats decided to claw back public assistance. They expanded it. Republicans, they wanted to cut taxes and cut public assistance.

Agreed. But what I'm saying is, I think what we are seeing in the Republican party now is selfishness and fear of resources being taken by women, immigrants, brown people, etc.

For example, to me, reproductive freedoms are economic freedoms. If half the population is hamstrung by unwanted pregnancy, unwanted children, and/or the expense of contraception, it makes it that much easier for the males to be more competitive in the job. I think the "War on Women" of the last few years is really all about economics. As a man in my office said, out loud, to us ladies, "If only women didn't work, we'd all be able to get by on one salary". He's very jealous of dual income families because of his family's choice to have a SAHM. If only we ladies would go home and take care of our babies, he'd be better off.

The same with the hyperbole about immigrants. As a nation we are feeling the pinch and only about half of us are still willing to share. The other half are digging in their heels to hold on to their economic status as "haves".

This is also why you see the emphasis on gun rights. So that people filled with fear over losing their resources feel like they can defend their property from the takers. The 47%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

This portion of your question is both extremely provocative and not credible, so I can't provide an answer.

Can you point to examples of sustainable socialism outside of nordic countries?

And before anyone says canada, uk, australia, or other western european countries please check their demographic mixes before writing.

I think this is a very uncomfortable topic to explore because it will inform what exactly is the achievable by progressives in this country.

It seems that the examples as well as the sociological micro data (how humans interact with those that are similar vs. different) point to a certain correlation.

Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, Canada all have larger foreign-born populations as a percentage than we do. And obviously we haven't failed yet.

Interesting that you used 'foreign-born' specifically instead of general race. have you been to these countries? Other than NZ, the rest are way whiter than the US (canada is close, but still statistically whiter). Switzerland has tons of foreign born expats from the US and germany, uk, and western europe working for a few years before leaving. I worked in zurich for two years - even most of the expats in zurich, zug, lucerne are all 'white' even if the hail from the US, munich, london or northern italy.

Aus and Can have lots of UK expats due to being commonwealth countries.

where did i ever say anything about failing? I talked about sustainable and successful progressive policies, which you are joking if include us in the class of the nordics.

Racially, we aren't really that diverse. We are 12.8% black and 4% Asian.

The rough split is 70 W 30 rest. in canada it is 75-80 depending on how you classify what they call as 'non-visible vs. visible'.

Canada is the best example of what we can be i guess. They do have a much better progressive agenda but have the closest demographics to us though a lot more asians but less hispanic and way less of african-descent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Singapore and Switzerland are not homogeneous.

And they are progressive.

Singapore achieves progressivity in the same way we would if we had Democrat single party rule for 50+ years having virtual carte blanche on policy.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:Ummm I value gun rights because its how you defend the rest of your rights...........

Yup. That's how Koreatown defended themselves during the WATTS riots. Police couldn't handle it all.

http://touch.humanevents.com/humanevents/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F#!/entry/51646948d7fc7b5670a41481&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fhumanevents.com%2F2012%2F12%2F23%2Fwhen-assault-weapons-saved-koreatown%2F&oswts=1407936381211

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

liamw wrote:Ummm I value gun rights because its how you defend the rest of your rights...........

Yup. That's how Koreatown defended themselves during the WATTS riots. Police couldn't handle it all.

http://touch.humanevents.com/humanevents/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F#!/entry/51646948d7fc7b5670a41481&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fhumanevents.com%2F2012%2F12%2F23%2Fwhen-assault-weapons-saved-koreatown%2F&oswts=1407936381211

there are at least 5 genocides that fallowed Gov gun bans in the last 100 years....

Plenty of genocides in countries where guns are rampant.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:yet those people can attempt to defend them selves, also you may want to do some research on some of the larger scale issues over the last 100 years ?

Never try to make a point by telling someone else to do research. They might know more than you do.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:WW2 was preceded by a gun ban targeting jews. Cambodia...China...The Armenians...anti Stalinist/anti communist in Stalin Russia (IE political genocide)...The Mayans in Guatemala...Christians in Uganda...the list gos on all of these fallowing gun bans/restrictions on these people.

You left out a lot of obvious examples in Africa. I assume you know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

This portion of your question is both extremely provocative and not credible, so I can't provide an answer.

Can you point to examples of sustainable socialism outside of nordic countries?

And before anyone says canada, uk, australia, or other western european countries please check their demographic mixes before writing.

I think this is a very uncomfortable topic to explore because it will inform what exactly is the achievable by progressives in this country.

It seems that the examples as well as the sociological micro data (how humans interact with those that are similar vs. different) point to a certain correlation.

You think progressive economic policies = socialism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

This portion of your question is both extremely provocative and not credible, so I can't provide an answer.

Can you point to examples of sustainable socialism outside of nordic countries?

And before anyone says canada, uk, australia, or other western european countries please check their demographic mixes before writing.

I think this is a very uncomfortable topic to explore because it will inform what exactly is the achievable by progressives in this country.

It seems that the examples as well as the sociological micro data (how humans interact with those that are similar vs. different) point to a certain correlation.

You think progressive economic policies = socialism?

A healthy semi-socialist compact is closer to progressive ideals than what we have now, yes.

I think pooling resources for the common good is sound for society instead of the corrosive everyman for himself attitude that pervades this place.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:So what your saying is that people who work harder and apply them self should have the same as those who don't

I do not think there should be an oversized gap that's occuring in this country (partially due to policy, lots to due progress in trade and productivity increases such as those taht lead to 'winner-take-all' markets).

But this only works in 'high trust' societies - i.e. yes, i'm willing to pay for rich safety nets knowing that my fellow man is trying to better his station. I also like having the comfort of it being there in case i fall.

what are you going to do in 20-30 years when automation destroys jobs further and further up the skill tree. This is different from humans outpacing the steam engine or the ATM.

Read cowen and mcafee/byrnjolffson.

Now both have different policy prescriptions but the outlook of where we are going is the same.

Things like a basic wage/guarunteed income are going to be much easier to pass in high-trust societies, and we are far from that.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:Ummm I value gun rights because its how you defend the rest of your rights...........

Give me a few examples of how having a gun protects you from the govt.

The govt is coming to mow you down in tanks. How does your gun help you?

The cops are coming to your house, maybe it's a case of mistaken identity. They kick down your door in a drug raid. Do you shoot cops? Really?