for those who want to reduce government services - what country is your model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

The United States became the most powerful nation in the world by all measures while maintaining a individual focused system of politics and government, with fewer social programs compared to Europe and Asia.

Again, why should I as a citizen think that "powerful" is a good proxy for serving my own interests? From my perspective Sweden looks really nice - why should I care about my nation being the most powerful?

How powerful a country is economically and militarily translate directly to quality of life and safety. I am not saying that US has the highest quality of life for everyone, but things are pretty good here, because we are strong economically and militarily. Sweden is really nice too, I agree, and in certain aspects, Sweden has less regulation and is more business-friendly than the US. Read this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/12/21/sweden-heads-the-best-countries-for-business-for-2017/#126502f17ecd

And I quote: "Over the past two decades the country has undergone a transformation built on deregulation and budget self-restraint with cuts to Sweden’s welfare state."

WOW, this seems to be a DIRECT answer to the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

The United States became the most powerful nation in the world by all measures while maintaining a individual focused system of politics and government, with fewer social programs compared to Europe and Asia.

'


You do realize how much poverty there was in the US through the 1960s, right? Yes, the US became the most powerful nation in the mid-20th century, but a large percentage of its people were living miserable and difficult lives throughout much of the century Squalor, hunger, hardship, discrimination and oppression. And the New Deal sought to lessen that misery, as did the Johnson's Great Society. Poverty in this country wasn't magically erased by an "individual focused system of politics and government." It was greatly reduced by government safety net programs, labor laws, and anti-discrimination judicial decisions.

Sure, I realize that there was poverty in the US in the 60s. There's poverty in the US now. The question isn't if there is poverty in the US, there clearly is. The question is when has a country done well while while not having elaborate social safety nets, and the history of the US has clearly shown this to be the case.

[Anonymous]

There is a difference between providing a safety net and a hammock. Too many countries - example France - provide a hammock and they continue to go nowhere economically. Many countries in Africa can't afford to provide a safety net and their economies barely have a pulse. Our safety nets should consist of quality education through HS, job training and basic medical care plus special care for those disabled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

The United States became the most powerful nation in the world by all measures while maintaining a individual focused system of politics and government, with fewer social programs compared to Europe and Asia.

Again, why should I as a citizen think that "powerful" is a good proxy for serving my own interests? From my perspective Sweden looks really nice - why should I care about my nation being the most powerful?

How powerful a country is economically and militarily translate directly to quality of life and safety. I am not saying that US has the highest quality of life for everyone, but things are pretty good here, because we are strong economically and militarily. Sweden is really nice too, I agree, and in certain aspects, Sweden has less regulation and is more business-friendly than the US. Read this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/12/21/sweden-heads-the-best-countries-for-business-for-2017/#126502f17ecd

And I quote: "Over the past two decades the country has undergone a transformation built on deregulation and budget self-restraint with cuts to Sweden’s welfare state."

WOW, this seems to be a DIRECT answer to the OP.

Sweden does seem like a nice place to model ourselves on. Something for everyone: strong social welfare, less regulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

The United States became the most powerful nation in the world by all measures while maintaining a individual focused system of politics and government, with fewer social programs compared to Europe and Asia.

Again, why should I as a citizen think that "powerful" is a good proxy for serving my own interests? From my perspective Sweden looks really nice - why should I care about my nation being the most powerful?

How powerful a country is economically and militarily translate directly to quality of life and safety. I am not saying that US has the highest quality of life for everyone, but things are pretty good here, because we are strong economically and militarily. Sweden is really nice too, I agree, and in certain aspects, Sweden has less regulation and is more business-friendly than the US. Read this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2016/12/21/sweden-heads-the-best-countries-for-business-for-2017/#126502f17ecd

And I quote: "Over the past two decades the country has undergone a transformation built on deregulation and budget self-restraint with cuts to Sweden’s welfare state."

WOW, this seems to be a DIRECT answer to the OP.

Really? How does military power translate into quality of life? What about Costa Rica, which famously got rid of its military? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Forces_of_Costa_Rica

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between providing a safety net and a hammock. Too many countries - example France - provide a hammock and they continue to go nowhere economically. Many countries in Africa can't afford to provide a safety net and their economies barely have a pulse. Our safety nets should consist of quality education through HS, job training and basic medical care plus special care for those disabled.

I know France has its economic issues, but why should economic predominence necessarily be the #1 goal of a nation? Do we need to be #1 economically? Also I see that you're cutting college out of the equation for safety net ... how does it make sense not to support educating people who are so crucial to the economy and wellbeing of the nation, like doctors and police officers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

The United States became the most powerful nation in the world by all measures while maintaining a individual focused system of politics and government, with fewer social programs compared to Europe and Asia.

'


You do realize how much poverty there was in the US through the 1960s, right? Yes, the US became the most powerful nation in the mid-20th century, but a large percentage of its people were living miserable and difficult lives throughout much of the century Squalor, hunger, hardship, discrimination and oppression. And the New Deal sought to lessen that misery, as did the Johnson's Great Society. Poverty in this country wasn't magically erased by an "individual focused system of politics and government." It was greatly reduced by government safety net programs, labor laws, and anti-discrimination judicial decisions.

Sure, I realize that there was poverty in the US in the 60s. There's poverty in the US now. The question isn't if there is poverty in the US, there clearly is. The question is when has a country done well while while not having elaborate social safety nets, and the history of the US has clearly shown this to be the case.

When has the US "done well" at lower levels of social welfare and investment (not just welfare, but also infrastructure spending, etc) than we have in the present?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why look to other countries for examples when we have the history of the United States itself as the best example.

how so?

The United States became the most powerful nation in the world by all measures while maintaining a individual focused system of politics and government, with fewer social programs compared to Europe and Asia.

'


You do realize how much poverty there was in the US through the 1960s, right? Yes, the US became the most powerful nation in the mid-20th century, but a large percentage of its people were living miserable and difficult lives throughout much of the century Squalor, hunger, hardship, discrimination and oppression. And the New Deal sought to lessen that misery, as did the Johnson's Great Society. Poverty in this country wasn't magically erased by an "individual focused system of politics and government." It was greatly reduced by government safety net programs, labor laws, and anti-discrimination judicial decisions.

Sure, I realize that there was poverty in the US in the 60s. There's poverty in the US now. The question isn't if there is poverty in the US, there clearly is. The question is when has a country done well while while not having elaborate social safety nets, and the history of the US has clearly shown this to be the case.

I don't know how you can say the country has "done well" when a large portion of its population was living in poverty. It does not compute, sorry.

[Anonymous]

This is where conservatives lose big time.

Republicans have no answers to societal issues.

45 million Americans uninsured - their fault.
Global Warming - don't care, oil and coal for life!!!
Poor people - doesn't matter to meeeeee!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for people who don't believe government should provide a safety net, health care, etc. What nation is your model for this? Is there a country (or even a U.S. state) where reducing basic services and the social safety net has produced a thriving populace and healthy economy?

You think the United States got to be the most powerful country in the nation by having an abundance of social programs? I support a safety net, but not a cushy one. I don't see why we have to look at any other country since our own past history in this context and regard gives us so much good evidence.

We had several factors in our favor. Social safety net probably did not play a major role either way, but I know some people argue that it does. I really doubt it though. For years the Soviet Union was the second most powerful country in the world despite the huge disadvantages of it's political and economic system. Now China is catching up to us, with yet another type of system.

This is asinine. Soviet Union was only the "second most powerful" in military spending and power. It lagged far behind the US in economic power. This is one of the reason why the USSR imploded, because the economy tanked under the weight of communism and social programs. Russia is economically stronger now than it was as USSR, but at the same time it also offers *LESS* social programs now than it did under USSR. The story is the same with China, which bordered on economic collapse due to the social programs put in place under communism. Only a march towards free market economy (towards, but not free market yet), fast paced privatization, and a significant reduction in social programs has China now become so much stronger than it was before. That said, neither Russia nor China are models for the US to study. I'd hate to see the US move towards the old communist USSR and China while both Russia and China have moved away form it in the past 2-3 decades.

You miss the point. Economic and military power do not correlate with social safety nets. The Soviet Union also had a great deal of economic power in its heyday. Germany built and rebuilt itself into a great military power twice and a great economic power 3 times all while providing a social safety net.

The conservative assumption always seems to be that the optimal social safety net is equal to or less than what we have, but they can provide no examples other than the US itself. But given the many other historical and geographic advantages the US has enjoyed, how do we know that the social safety net is THE issue that made us great, and that any increase to it would inevitably make things worse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't need to look to other countries. Read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia outlining minimal, night-watchman state.

Right, were going to undo everything and create the world's first mini-archist state out of a book. And people think liberals have some wild ideas.

It's not creating a state from scratch, from the state of nature like John Rawls. Obviously you didn't read philosophy. Nozick starts from where we are.

Actually, I've read a ton of philosophy including Rawls and Nozick. Rawls uses an updated version of Enlightment social contract theory. It's a philosophical construct, not an actual state of nature from which to create something. When the founding fathers started the United States they used social contract theory, but they based their new society on British and colonial models. Rawls likewise seeks a justification for our present system allowing redistribution of wealth as well as changing it a more equitable direction.

On the other hand, Nozick posits a society that is radically different from the one we have and for which there is no prior model.

Rawls starting point is what he calls the veil of ignorance - something which never, ever, happens in real life. Nozick's starting point, on the other hands, is here and now. Read his Walt Chamberlain example to see he's not far off from the existing system if you live in a capitalist economy. And it's a matter of how big of a government you want. The night-watchman state does not rule out social programs where social programs fix prior injustice.

The starting points are theoretical in both cases. But there has never been a state remotely resembling the night watchman state. There are many states that redistribute wealth not to be correct past injustices, but to provide a basic standard of living for everyone regardless of the reason they can't reach that standard on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't need to look to other countries. Read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia outlining minimal, night-watchman state.

Right, were going to undo everything and create the world's first mini-archist state out of a book. And people think liberals have some wild ideas.

It's not creating a state from scratch, from the state of nature like John Rawls. Obviously you didn't read philosophy. Nozick starts from where we are.

Actually, I've read a ton of philosophy including Rawls and Nozick. Rawls uses an updated version of Enlightment social contract theory. It's a philosophical construct, not an actual state of nature from which to create something. When the founding fathers started the United States they used social contract theory, but they based their new society on British and colonial models. Rawls likewise seeks a justification for our present system allowing redistribution of wealth as well as changing it a more equitable direction.

On the other hand, Nozick posits a society that is radically different from the one we have and for which there is no prior model.

Rawls starting point is what he calls the veil of ignorance - something which never, ever, happens in real life. Nozick's starting point, on the other hands, is here and now. Read his Walt Chamberlain example to see he's not far off from the existing system if you live in a capitalist economy. And it's a matter of how big of a government you want. The night-watchman state does not rule out social programs where social programs fix prior injustice.

The starting points are theoretical in both cases. But there has never been a state remotely resembling the night watchman state. There are many states that redistribute wealth not to be correct past injustices, but to provide a basic standard of living for everyone regardless of the reason they can't reach that standard on their own.

You've obviously never read these people. Wiki and Cliff Notes can only teach you so much... It shows...

[Anonymous]

If a person refuses to become self sufficient but has the means and ability, what should be done about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a person refuses to become self sufficient but has the means and ability, what should be done about that?

In Rawls's theory which is bottom centered, they hold the rest of the society as hostages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don't need to look to other countries. Read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia outlining minimal, night-watchman state.

Right, were going to undo everything and create the world's first mini-archist state out of a book. And people think liberals have some wild ideas.

It's not creating a state from scratch, from the state of nature like John Rawls. Obviously you didn't read philosophy. Nozick starts from where we are.

Actually, I've read a ton of philosophy including Rawls and Nozick. Rawls uses an updated version of Enlightment social contract theory. It's a philosophical construct, not an actual state of nature from which to create something. When the founding fathers started the United States they used social contract theory, but they based their new society on British and colonial models. Rawls likewise seeks a justification for our present system allowing redistribution of wealth as well as changing it a more equitable direction.

On the other hand, Nozick posits a society that is radically different from the one we have and for which there is no prior model.

Rawls starting point is what he calls the veil of ignorance - something which never, ever, happens in real life. Nozick's starting point, on the other hands, is here and now. Read his Walt Chamberlain example to see he's not far off from the existing system if you live in a capitalist economy. And it's a matter of how big of a government you want. The night-watchman state does not rule out social programs where social programs fix prior injustice.

The starting points are theoretical in both cases. But there has never been a state remotely resembling the night watchman state. There are many states that redistribute wealth not to be correct past injustices, but to provide a basic standard of living for everyone regardless of the reason they can't reach that standard on their own.

You've obviously never read these people. Wiki and Cliff Notes can only teach you so much... It shows...

Well it's been quite a while since I read them, but I don't recall thinking that Nozick's state was workable.