News America's aversion to socialism ?

[Hootenanny]

Socialism is anti-parallel to freedom, not orthogonal. Under socialism you as an individual do not have the freedom to own or control the means of production. Under capitalism you do.

We have to be careful here not to confuse economic freedom and social freedom. I think that is where the confusion arose between Russ' comment and MacroD's response.

 

[russ_watters]

We have to be careful here not to confuse economic freedom and social freedom. I think that is where the confusion arose between Russ' comment and MacroD's response.

Er, I would say pretty much the opposite: economic freedoms are a subset of social freedoms.

 

[redsunrise]

There is also a theory that because socialism redistributes money from the few to the many, it will inevitably and continuously expand in a democratic society, even if the policies are actually self-destructive in the long term. My fear is that this problem could cause western society to self-destruct and that the current problems in Europe are a harbinger of that.

You nailed it, man.

The problem is insidious, but inevitable: if a public sector employee can award himself $100 at the cost of $0.1 to every member of the public via politics, trying to prevent that is a proposition that incurs net loss to a politician: he loses support of the public sector, while the public doesn't even notice. And so everyone does that, and soon redistribution grows more and more massive. Until it becomes actually unsustainable, like in Greece now or in USA soon.

 

[russ_watters]

Socialism is anti-parallel to freedom, not orthogonal. Under socialism you as an individual do not have the freedom to own or control the means of production. Under capitalism you do.

While there are economic reasons to favor capitalism over socialism I think that American aversion to socialism is not primarily an economic objection, but an objection based on principles. Specifically the principle that a human should own and control the fruits of their own labor and means of production.

Yes, and it doesn't seem that Europeans recognize that social implications exist and they matter to Americans, which would be why the OP asked the question.

 

[Hootenanny]

Er, I would say pretty much the opposite: economic freedoms are a subset of social freedoms.

Whilst I admit that they are somewhat linked and true freedom means both social and economic freedom it doesn't mean that a communist state is less free than a capitalist state. One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush), just as one can left-wing and libertarian (Gandhi).

 

[mheslep]

A truly communist state is by definition not free. Freedom in such a society only exists in gaps in communist control.

 

[redsunrise]

Well, from my Dutch perspective, that Miller article is utter nonsense. The welfare state works, he says it himself, everybody is better off. The fact that the poor are not poor out of choice but also are just worse at coping with everyday life, and do more dirty jobs, translates to statistics that they have a poorer health, I don't find that anywhere strange.

What is broken about a welfare state? In a more static, complex and populated society, it just makes sense to institutionalize caring and sharing. There's nothing wrong with that, and in general just leads to a more prosperous and calm society.

Look, I can't help you with comprehending that at the end of 19th century 5% of children were illiterate, whereas now in Britain, after so many decades of welfare state, 20% are practically illiterate.

If you read the article precisely, with comprehension, you'll see a Miller pointing to the fact that by empirical accounts, welfare state does NOT work. It actually made the situation worse. Due to human psychology, motivations, economics, politics, mentality - it makes everyone, including but not limited to the poor, worse off. Except a handful of truly needy and sick, welfare state could collapse tomorrow and we'd be no worse off than we are.

Miller wants it fixed and good welfare state in place. I argue this cannot happen because due to complex reality welfare state works precisely opposite to your idea: that it leads to more prosperous and calm society. It doesn't. Every improvement over the 20th century can be traced to other improvements, but not to welfare state: higher incomes, better technology, better medicine, public health campaigns like anti-smoking. The things that made our life better are not parts of the welfare state. That's the point that both Miller and I make.

Correlation is not causation. Just because welfare state correlated with improvement of situation does not mean it made things better.

Regarding Dutch, here's an interesting paper:

"[URL
[/URL]

Those are lower-educated Dutch that are against welfare state - I wager this is precisely because they experienced it first-hand. Those are educated people who support welfare state, precisely because they did not experience it.

 

[WhoWee]

Er, I would say pretty much the opposite: economic freedoms are a subset of social freedoms.

In the US, it might be more accurate to further define the freedoms as as derived from productive or unproductive participation in the economy?

This might over-simplify - IMO - people who seek freedom to be economically productive are more inclined to also want social freedoms. On the other hand, people who are unproductive economically and/or dependent upon the Government or an organization for survival are more acclimated to accept less social freedom - a rational trade-off.

 

[russ_watters]

Whilst I admit that they are somewhat linked and true freedom means both social and economic freedom it doesn't mean that a communist state is less free than a capitalist state.

It would depend on how they are scored, which, again, is why I would focus on policies, not countries: You can't have a single (not combined with others) socialist policy that increases freedom. Socialist policies deacrease freedom, by definition.

 

[WhoWee]

Whilst I admit that they are somewhat linked and true freedom means both social and economic freedom it doesn't mean that a communist state is less free than a capitalist state. One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush), just as one can left-wing and libertarian (Gandhi).

Please support your assertion regarding "One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush)" - or label as opinion.

 

[redsunrise]

Why would socialism reduce freedom? It's orthogonal, I might also claim that people have more freedoms in a 'socialist' society because they are in general better protected. It's an orthogonal issue.

Because there's no such thing as voluntary socialism. Sure, everybody likes using stuff and services up for free, but nobody wants to participate in it re working and undertaking the effort. That is, voluntary socialism proponents claim it can work voluntarily, but I claim that they're just smoking something wicked. They hold a bad theory about human psychology and context: Rousseau's claim, that is that men are good and made bad by social systems. That is plain incorrect.

So you have to have socialism based on some sort of force. There's no other way. The only true socialism is Stalinist socialism. Everything else falls apart.

The only way is to found your socialism on combination of deception, lies and force. Like Social Security / pay as you go.

 

[russ_watters]

In the US, it might be more accurate to further define the freedoms as as derived from productive or unproductive participation in the economy?

This might over-simplify - IMO - people who seek freedom to be economically productive are more inclined to also want social freedoms. On the other hand, people who are unproductive economically and/or dependent upon the Government or an organization for survival are more acclimated to accept less social freedom - a rational trade-off.

It may be rational, but it is not what I perceive the reality to be. Liberals tend to favor social freedom over economic and vice versa. That's due to differences in what different people think are important.

 

[redsunrise]

Having lived in your nice country for 18 months, I found the business climate quite amenable to what people in the US would consider open and free competition, and employee attitudes and work ethic were top notch. No wonder it's one of the strongest economies in Europe, with enlightened social policy along with that.

Certainly one factor that helps a society to support and implement an adequate social safety net is the degree to which an individual's perception is that he/she is helping others like him/herself. I fear that much of the debate in the US is driven by the fear that one is subsidizing a lazy, no good ethnic group distinct from one's own. Media-driven frenzy about individual cases of abusing the system helps drive the perception that "those people are living off me."

I remember back when President Johnson implemented many of the policies and programs under attack today, the majority ethnic group was much more a majority, and the common perception was that one was helping the "old folks back home." Support was also derived from having seen the alternative in action in the form of grinding poverty and ill-health. I still remember the 50's, when hobos had chalk signals to help others find where friendly and charitable people lived.

Americans today are blinded by an ideological perspective that obscures the realities that factually existed only a few decades ago. To suggest that charity, especially Christian charity, would voluntarily cover the gap left by eliminating the social safety net is so laughable and pathetic it makes me sick whenever I hear that lame, historically counter-factual argument.

To quote Ronald Reagan, Johnson has declared war on poverty and poverty won. The poverty was decreasing in USA until War on Poverty took place. I'm not kidding. Check it out.

I'm sure that if you keep your welfare state small politically somehow, it won't swallow entire economy. But that's balancing on the rope act. Sooner or later you're going to fall. Few countries manage to dismantle half of their welfare state and keep the remaining half. Sweden under Moderate Party (centre-right, like US Republicans without RINOs, actually with cojones), accomplished the feat - so far. I'm not bullish on their long-term outlook, though.

 

[Hootenanny]

Please support your assertion regarding "One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush)" - or label as opinion.

Any classification of any non-extreme political figure is going to be a matter of opinion. There is no evidence one can provide that will disprove or prove one's assertion of a politician's position on the political spectrum. I believe that such things go without saying.

It would depend on how they are scored, which, again, is why I would focus on policies, not countries: You can't have a single (not combined with others) socialist policy that increases freedom. Socialist policies deacrease freedom, by definition.

As you say, it depends on what you class as "socialist" policies. My point is that they don't have to decrease freedom, by definition. Some can in fact increase freedoms by improving social mobility. I would say, that in my opinion, there is no "absolute freedom". By this I mean, when someone's freedom increases usually, someone else's freedom is reduced. There are very few (if any) policies that only increase, or only decrease freedoms.

Coming back round to WhoWee's comment. This is why it is very difficult to have such conversation, much less substantiate facts. By and large, such "facts" are not really facts. The majority of statements in this thread have been opinion and that is the nature of politics. Whether one classes a policy as "socialist" depends on one's outlook - there is not standardized measure of the orientation of policy. Just as there is no standard metric to determine a person's position on the political spectrum.

 

[Hootenanny]

Because there's no such thing as voluntary socialism

Nor is there such thing as voluntary capitalism.

 

[redsunrise]

It would depend on how they are scored, which, again, is why I would focus on policies, not countries: You can't have a single (not combined with others) socialist policy that increases freedom. Socialist policies deacrease freedom, by definition.

Purely theoretically, you could have socialism voluntarily without infringing on other people's rights: if participating guys just did not force anyone else to participate, too.

The proponents of socialism know perfectly this is never going to happen, unless people are genetically modified into behaving, say, like ants. Humans are individuals with self-interest first.

So the only way to have socialism in this world is to force it. Try asking proponent of Social Security if they allowed voluntary opt-out, with losing benefits of course.

No way in hell. They would rather have everyone starve to death. They know perfectly why: it has to be based on coercion. Very few, if any, would have participated voluntarily in the scheme.

 

[redsunrise]

Nor is there such thing as voluntary capitalism.

Of course there is: you want to participate, do. You don't want to participate, don't: form your own commune, move to kibbutz in Israel.

 

[WhoWee]

It may be rational, but it is not what I perceive the reality to be. Liberals tend to favor social freedom over economic and vice versa. That's due to differences in what different people think are important.

Their perception aside, liberals efforts rarely yield the desired result - IMO of course.

When I posted "On the other hand, people who are unproductive economically and/or dependent upon the Government or an organization for survival are more acclimated to accept less social freedom - a rational trade-off.", the "organization" in mind was a strong labor union. Workers typically give up freedoms to be part of an organization that will both restrict them economically and speak for them. What is the perception of the union worker who pays dues to lose freedom?

 

[Hootenanny]

Try asking proponent of Social Security if they allowed voluntary opt-out, with losing benefits of course.

No way in hell. They would rather have everyone starve to death. They know perfectly why: it has to be based on coercion. Very few, if any, would have participated voluntarily in the scheme.

Wait. Have I missed something here, or are you against social security? Not socialism, but actually social security?

 

[redsunrise]

As you say, it depends on what you class as "socialist" policies. My point is that they don't have to decrease freedom, by definition. Some can in fact increase freedoms by improving social mobility. I would say, that in my opinion, there is no "absolute freedom". By this I mean, when someone's freedom increases usually, someone else's freedom is reduced. There are very few (if any) policies that only increase, or only decrease freedoms.

Clearing confusion up: negative liberty, positive liberty. Look them up. I claim the latter is bull.

 

[redsunrise]

Wait. Have I missed something here, or are you against social security? Not socialism, but actually social security?

That, too. I'm against any forceful expropriation and participation in a program that is beyond doubt necessary as exceeding capabilities of individual to handle the problem himself. Public goods like public roads, firefighting, national defence, jurisdiction, crime fighting are examples of such programs. Social security is not. A retirement income is a private affair.

I'm not for forcing people out of social security. They want to stay, let them stay. Let those who want out, out.

 

[MarcoD]

Look, I can't help you with comprehending that at the end of 19th century 5% of children were illiterate, whereas now in Britain, after so many decades of welfare state, 20% are practically illiterate.

If you read the article precisely, with comprehension, you'll see a Miller pointing to the fact that by empirical accounts, welfare state does NOT work. It actually made the situation worse. Due to human psychology, motivations, economics, politics, mentality - it makes everyone, including but not limited to the poor, worse off. Except a handful of truly needy and sick, welfare state could collapse tomorrow and we'd be no worse off than we are.

Miller wants it fixed and good welfare state in place. I argue this cannot happen because due to complex reality welfare state works precisely opposite to your idea: that it leads to more prosperous and calm society. It doesn't. Every improvement over the 20th century can be traced to other improvements, but not to welfare state: higher incomes, better technology, better medicine, public health campaigns like anti-smoking. The things that made our life better are not parts of the welfare state. That's the point that both Miller and I make.

Correlation is not causation. Just because welfare state correlated with improvement of situation does not mean it made things better.

Illiteracy is a problem of the UK, not of the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, or any other northern European country. It doesn't generalize, except for that something is going wrong in the UK.

The welfare state: About a hundred years ago the south of the Netherlands was riddled with slums of drunk catholics who had too many children (at least to the north's perception), lived in poor housing conditions (one room per family), and men just ran away from that leaving the mother and children behind.

To me, there is no doubt in my mind that investing in that south with lots of welfare money now means that these conditions don't exist anymore, and there is a well-off productive society there.

Nobody can prove anything about this, but to me it is self-evident that without a welfare state, many slums would still exist, like they do in other countries.

Regarding Dutch, here's an interesting paper:

"[URL
[/URL]

Those are lower-educated Dutch that are against welfare state - I wager this is precisely because they experienced it first-hand. Those are educated people who support welfare state, precisely because they did not experience it.

The lower-educated are against everything because the system just doesn't work for them. They'll never be millionaires, at least, the most of them won't, and they know it. Statistics like that say nothing, except for that they simply don't appreciate what this welfare state does for them.

 

[russ_watters]

As you say, it depends on what you class as "socialist" policies. My point is that they don't have to decrease freedom, by definition. Some can in fact increase freedoms by improving social mobility.

No, that's not what I said, and it is only by altering the definitions that that can be true:

I would say, that in my opinion, there is no "absolute freedom". By this I mean, when someone's freedom increases usually, someone else's freedom is reduced.

In western political philosophy, freedom is an individual, not a collective thing. You can believe what you want, but that belief creates all sorts of problems when trying to deal with the functioning of western societies.

Coming back round to WhoWee's comment. This is why it is very difficult to have such conversation, much less substantiate facts.

In that case, I would ask that if people who favor socialism insist on using non-standard definitions for words, they provide a logical basis for those definitions, preferably one that comes from an established philosophy.

 

[WhoWee]

That, too. I'm against any forceful expropriation and participation in a program that is beyond doubt necessary as exceeding capabilities of individual to handle the problem himself. Public goods like public roads, firefighting, national defence, jurisdiction, crime fighting are examples of such programs. Social security is not. A retirement income is a private affair.

I'm not for forcing people out of social security. They want to stay, let them stay. Let those who want out, out.

The problem with Social Security is the Government can't let you opt out because they've spent your invested dollars. Unlike an insurance company or an investment fund, the Government is allowed to spend your money as they see fit and leave behind a debt instrument - no cash reserve or oversight. (Worse yet - the debt was recently downgraded). If Social Security could let you opt out - they would have to give you a Treasury note payable at some future date.

 

[Hootenanny]

That, too. I'm against any forceful expropriation and participation in a program that is beyond doubt necessary as exceeding capabilities of individual to handle the problem himself. Public goods like public roads, firefighting, national defence, jurisdiction, crime fighting are examples of such programs. Social security is not. A retirement income is a private affair.

I'm not for forcing people out of social security. They want to stay, let them stay. Let those who want out, out.

That is an incredibly simplistic interpretation of social security. Social Security is not simply a retirement fund.

And an optional social security wouldn't work. Everybody needs to contribute to Social Security to support those who require more than their means provide.

Oh, and by your logic - the US social security system is voluntary, if you don't want to contribute then simply emigrate.

 

[Hootenanny]

In that case, I would ask that if people who favor socialism insist on using non-standard definitions for words, they provide a logical basis for those definitions, preferably one that comes from an established philosophy.

I would be very grateful if you could point out where I have used a non-standard definition.

 

[russ_watters]

Nor is there such thing as voluntary capitalism.

I don't think redsunrise answered properly:

It isn't what system you have that is voluntary, but rather what you do in it that is voluntary. Voluntary social security, for example, wouldn't work.

 

[russ_watters]

I would be very grateful if you could point out where I have used a non-standard definition.

In both previous quotes, you are using nonstandard definitions of freedom.

 

[Hootenanny]

In the quote above it.

I don't believe I am in contradiction with the western definition of political freedom. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a federal law prohibiting homicide impinges on a person's freedom?

 

[turbo]

A huge part of the problem, IMO, is that FOX and other right-wing media portray any government program that they don't like as "socialism", while giving the word a very pejorative slant. This resonates among the poorly-educated and ill-informed. Remember Tea Party rallies with signs (side-by-side, often) that read "No Socialized Medicine" and "Hands off my Medicare"?

There are some things that need to be done collectively, regardless of what labels people throw around. Can we maintain our armed forces and pay our troops using businesses only? Can we build and maintain road systems, bridges, etc, without collective action? Who would build the interstate highway system, if not the government (DOT)? The government should act for the common welfare. Such actions are not socialism, but enlightened self-interest. The Interstate highway system that provides for the smooth, rapid transit of goods, produce, etc is a benefit that we all enjoy.

 

[WhoWee]

I would be very grateful if you could point out where I have used a non-standard definition.

Again, your comment ""One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush)"" can not be supported to fit a standard definition.

 

[Hootenanny]

Again, your comment ""One can be right-wing and authoritarian (Bush)"" can not be supported to fit a standard definition.

I reiterate, that statement cannot be supported. There is no standard measure of a person's "degree of right-wingness", therefore it is pointless to argue whether it is true or not. I meant it purely as a concrete illustration. It was not a factual claim, as most of the claims here are not.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't believe I am in contradiction with the western definition of political freedom. Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a federal law prohibiting homicide impinges on a person's freedom?

No. There is no right/freedom to murder. This objection is somewhat procedural and less important than the other one. To make sure I'm clear on the other one: does your comment on social mobility mean you think social mobility is a collective right? Ie, wealth redistribution favors the collective rights of the poor over the individual rights of the rich?

 

[daveb]

To quote Ronald Reagan, Johnson has declared war on poverty and poverty won. The poverty was decreasing in USA until War on Poverty took place. I'm not kidding. Check it out.

I don't know where you get this information from, but http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-poverty-rate-hits-18-year-high-as-median-income-falls?GT1=43001" says differently

 

[skeptic2]

The problem with Social Security is the Government can't let you opt out because they've spent your invested dollars. Unlike an insurance company or an investment fund, the Government is allowed to spend your money as they see fit and leave behind a debt instrument - no cash reserve or oversight. (Worse yet - the debt was recently downgraded). If Social Security could let you opt out - they would have to give you a Treasury note payable at some future date.

The above seems to be a little misleading. This is from the SSA's webpage http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

"By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds."

 

[Hootenanny]

No. There is no right/freedom to murder. This objection is somewhat procedural and less important, than the other one. To make sure I'm clear on the other one: does your comment on social mobility mean you think social mobility is a collective right? Ie, wealth redistribution favors the collective rights of the poor over the individual rights of the rich?

In a nutshell yes.

And this, I think, brings us to the cusp of why we are butting heads. The "definition" of "political freedom" depends on your political orientation. There is no single undisputed definition of the term.

(Forgive me, I am going to use somewhat generalised terms, but I hope you will give me some latitude given the context). A liberal's definition of freedom involves the empowerment of individuals to determine the own life regardless of status. A conservative's (for want of a better word) definition on the other hand would describe freedom and the absence of constraints (i.e. laws) imposed by government.

Going back to the homicide law, it could be interpreted a number of ways depending on your particular definition of freedom. For example, a reduction in freedom since it imposes constraints, or an increase in freedom because it allows the would be victims the ability to determine their own life.

 

[russ_watters]

In a nutshell yes.

And this, I think, brings us to the cusp of why we are butting heads. The "definition" of "political freedom" depends on your political orientation. There is no single undisputed definition of the term.

In the US, there is essentially an "official" definition, which is embodied in our founding documents and is based on western political philosophy. And it holds that rights are an individual thing only. I would like to know where your definition of rights comes from.

 

[daveb]

In the US, there is essentially an "official" definition, which is embodied in our founding documents and is based on western political philosophy. And it holds that rights are an individual thing only.

Even this is not undisputed - therwise we wouldn't have this discussion, there wouldn't be cases going before SCOTUS, FOX and MSNBC wouldn't frequently butt heads.

 

[Hootenanny]

In the US, there is essentially an "official" definition, which is embodied in our founding documents and is based on western political philosophy. And it holds that rights are an individual thing only.

Russ, whilst the US may have a commonly accepted (but not official) definition of freedom/rights (I dispute this); do not confuse American politics, with Western Politics, they are in fact very different. Freedom in the UK, and the rest of Europe, evidently does not mean the same thing as Freedom in the USA.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In the US, there is essentially an "official" definition, which is embodied in our founding documents and is based on western political philosophy. And it holds that rights are an individual thing only. I would like to know where your definition of rights comes from.

Could you quote the reference and cite the source?

 

[russ_watters]

I need to bow out for a few hours, so I can'give a detailed response now, but real quick:

1. I gave a basis for the individual rights definition, which includes several hundred years of academic quality political theory. I ask that someone who believes in collective rights provide a basis for it. Or is it just something being made up in
public politics in the past few decades?

2. With the usual caveats, there is a pretty good wiki on this concept that I think people should read: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_and_group_rights

 

[Hootenanny]

I am going to permanently bow out of the discussion. We have moved away from the original issue to the circular argument of essentially how we define freedom. There is no possibility of agreement on this. Unless we are all of the same political orientation, we are all more than likely going to have a different opinion, none of which are more valid or "correct" than any other.

 

[MarcoD]

No, that's not what I said, and it is only by altering the definitions that that can be true: In western political philosophy, freedom is an individual, not a collective thing. You can believe what you want, but that belief creates all sorts of problems when trying to deal with the functioning of western societies. In that case, I would ask that if people who favor socialism insist on using non-standard definitions for words, they provide a logical basis for those definitions, preferably one that comes from an established philosophy.

Actually, I agree with that. Which is why it is so hard to discuss socialism. In former eastern Europe it means communism, in the Netherlands it now (mostly) means labour and humanitarian rights and the welfare state, in the US it seems to mean government spending.

I also would like to add that I don't believe that whatever worked in the Netherlands might work in the US. The Netherlands is an old, very densely populated country, a small piece of soil with an aging population, or a big rural village. The US is a young continent with a youthful population and has a completely different history.

[Btw. Where I mean freedom I mean individual freedom as well.]

 

[mheslep]

I don't know where you get this information from, but http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-poverty-rate-hits-18-year-high-as-median-income-falls?GT1=43001" says differently

To the contrary, that graphic reinforces the Reagan claim which shows the number in poverty* fell sharply until the significant onset on the Johnson's legislation in the mid 60's.

*The term has a wildly different meaning now than it did in 1959. Now an American in poverty can have air conditioning, non-dilapidated shelter, a car, TV, never miss a meal, as is the case with about 3/4 of current poverty count. That was not the case w/ the 1959 definition.

 

[Gokul43201]

To the contrary, that graphic reinforces the Reagan claim which shows the number in poverty* fell sharply until the significant onset on the Johnson's legislation in the mid 60's.

Numbers are obfuscatory, rates are much more elucidatory (I think I made up that word). Of course, neither really says very much about the effect of a specific legislation when viewed with blinders to the other myriad causes and effects operating at the time.

From the wiki:

In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since.

 

[mheslep]

Numbers are obfuscatory, rates are much more elucidatory (I think I made up that word). Of course, neither really says very much about the effect of a specific legislation when viewed with blinders to the other myriad causes and effects operating at the time.

From the wiki:

I'd say the paragraph from Wiki obfuscates, as both the numbers and rates were heading rapidly down from 1959's 40%, leveled off in the 60's and have jiggled around 12% or 1969 rates ever since.

 

[daveb]

To the contrary, that graphic reinforces the Reagan claim which shows the number in poverty* fell sharply until the significant onset on the Johnson's legislation in the mid 60's.

What are you talking about? The graph shows a decline in both rate and absolute numbers until about 1969 when there is a small increase. The sharpest increase in numbers occurs from 1979 to 1983 as well as from 2008 to 2010 (I can't tell which has a larger increase). If you're saying the "significant onset" wasn't until 1979 to 1983, then I concede that point.However, the so called "War on Poverty" was well under way by that time. (Of course if you're saying that Reagan was right about "Poverty won", that is still being fought, IMO).

 

[Gokul43201]

I'd say the paragraph from Wiki obfuscates, as both the numbers and rates were heading rapidly down from 1959's 40%, leveled off in the 60's and have jiggled around 12% or 1969 rates ever since.

The paragraph I quoted is itself not obfuscatory in the sense that it merely states facts about what the rates were at different times. That was the point of contention I was addressing. If one tried to read a causality into it however, that is beyond the scope of my post.

 

[daveb]

Just leftists came along and started lying about it. Invented "positive liberty", for instance: a "right" to get yacht at somebody else's expense because one likes having a yacht.

Saying that leftists demand a right to a yacht is a strawman and disingenuous - I know of no one that has publicly advocated for such nonsense.

 

[redsunrise]

Illiteracy is a problem of the UK, not of the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, or any other northern European country. It doesn't generalize, except for that something is going wrong in the UK.

The welfare state: About a hundred years ago the south of the Netherlands was riddled with slums of drunk catholics who had too many children (at least to the north's perception), lived in poor housing conditions (one room per family), and men just ran away from that leaving the mother and children behind.

To me, there is no doubt in my mind that investing in that south with lots of welfare money now means that these conditions don't exist anymore, and there is a well-off productive society there.

That's absolutely true, except that the change from that miserable and regrettable state of things happened not because of welfare state, but because of rising real incomes in capitalist economies. Once people had the way out of misery, they used it.

When person's situation is hopeless, they drink. I was born in a Soviet system, am pretty much survivor of Soviet welare state (yes, it was a huge welfare state, despite its totalitarian political nature). You could not find a strip of grass without a man dead drunk lying on it. Nothing made sense.

That's not the situation today. Drunks have virtually disappeared. Part of it is that you can't drink, employers kick you out instantly for drinking on the job. Part of it, life is not so hopeless anymore.

Nobody can prove anything about this, but to me it is self-evident that without a welfare state, many slums would still exist, like they do in other countries.

Why is the subject in question supposedly unknowable? I think that solid research into an issue could be done, it's just too politically explosive to do this honestly.

The lower-educated are against everything because the system just doesn't work for them. They'll never be millionaires, at least, the most of them won't, and they know it. Statistics like that say nothing, except for that they simply don't appreciate what this welfare state does for them.

Welfare state is too expensive to live just on taxes off the rich. Profits in capitalism typically are several percent of GDP. Welfare state is easily like 40%-50% of GDP. If you outright confiscated all the property of the rich, not just taxed them, you could pay for a welfare state for a few weeks in a fiscal year, a few months at best in many countries.

Yes, welfare state subsidizes the poor. But its costs also rob them of opportunities they would have otherwise.