Thoughts on Social Democracy?

[SAYIT]

No, what you describe is Communism, not Social Democracy. You don't have a full understanding of what the term means if you think the two are equal. Let me give you some bullet points.

-A Communist wants everyone to have equal income. A Social Democrat wants everyone to have equal opportunity to earn income.

-A Communist wants to take all the rich people's money and assets by force. A Social Democrat acknowledges that there will always be rich and poor people, and so wants the rich to pay higher taxes because they earn more.

-A Communist wants to nationalize all industry and production. A Social Democrat may not want any nationalization, but if he does, it will only be industries that people literally can't live without, reasoning that the forces of supply and demand are unfair when we can't stop demanding a product/service out of necessity.

Funny thing is, your explanation sounds exactly like that which Contumacious described ... gov't enforced communism wrapped in genteel "social democracy" language.

1st point: Keyword is "opportunity." Social Democracy doesn't want everyone mandated to the exact same income. Rather, college and training programs should be free to allow the same opportunities to everyone...

I love this part. Here's a few clues for you, AS, 'cause you clearly are in desperate need of some:
Too many current college grads can neither find worthwhile employment nor do they have the ambition or wherewithal to start something new and create some jobs.
There is no evidence that increasing the number of college educated will have a positive impact on our economy or that it will level the playfield and ... there is no such thing as "FREE."
Unless or until you can convince all involved in higher education to volunteer their services and find a way to make the bricks and mortar care for themselves, somebody will need to pay for all that "FREE" education.

 

[SAYIT]

The government needs to reign in multinational corporations and leave the rest of us alone. That would see the biggest positive economic impact and the most benefit for the general public.

There is TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF INDIVIDUALS, AND SMALL COMPANIES.

Sure, but what is meant by "reign in" and can we trust gov't officials to do it without sliding into socialism? 'Tis a slippery slope, son.

Yes we can, if we can get more than a quarter of the country voting and make government corruption more difficult through legislation and demonetizing elections. Socialism=/=Communism, and it's not even a bad thing, though it goes further than my belief.

Ah, that slippery slope. I am impressed that you've come out of the closet so quickly, validating the perception that those who promote a social-democrat system are really just socialists & communists at heart. No thanks.
The fact is I have lived long enough (and voted enough) to know that virtually any function which can be performed privately should neither be done by nor significantly regulated by a large, brain-dead federal bureaucracy.

 

[Contumacious]

What the fuck do that means ? And what means do you use to accomplish that goal? And how is that different from the Libertarians ?

.

As in post-secondary education and training programs that are free to attend. Expanding organizations like WorkSource which helps people find jobs. Also, differing political positions tend to have some overlap.

Now read Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism. Individuals are free to study whatever and np one can interfere with their choice.


¶

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

 

[westwall]

There is no such thing as "fair" in nature. Nature doesn't give a flying fuck if you're a Democrat, or a Repub, or if you're nice or if you beat puppies or not. She just doesn't care.

This concept of fair is laughable. The difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom is many of us believe that it is societies duty to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Please note, that doesn't mean it is societies duty to take care of those who WON'T take care of themselves.

Mankind spends most of its life living in tyranny of one sort or another. As children we are beholden to our parents, as adults we have to pay our taxes etc. The difference is, in a collectivist society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

In an individualistic society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

The difference is..in a individualistic society ANYBODY can become one of the elite. I prefer to live in a society where I can advance myself and my station in life through hard work.

You people whining about fair have no idea just what that means. I suggest you educate yourselves...

Appeal to nature fallacy. What is good in nature is not necessarily good for society. If we have the ability to create a fairer society, then we should. It is society's duty to take care of EVERYONE. Not give them everything they want, but no one should have to starve out of unemployment. Just because there is a safety net for failures does not at ALL hinder your ability to become one of the elite. There is no tyranny in America right now, and most people are middle class or lower middle class. Taxes are not tyranny. I don't believe in a collectivist society. I believe in a mixed economy with a bit more regulation, along with democracy in corporations.

Society is a aspect of nature. You can only take from people for so long before they rebel. If you drive everyone down to a low level the time you have to exploit them is shorter. The USA has been around for a long time because even though the rich got richer, the poor did pretty damned good too.

Right now the poor in the USA are better off than 90% of the worlds population. That's a fact. They are able to be taken care of that well because of rich people. You keep blathering on about fairness but you don't really want fair. You want what the rich have, but are unwilling, or unable to get what they have.

Jealousy is a destructive emotion that leads you nowhere.

 

[westwall]

Mostly true, but the fairness isn't necessarily reducing creativity, it's creating an environment where people can try and fail, and not have the failure last the rest of their lives. If a person's business venture fails and he loses everything, he can have welfare to pay for his needs while retraining and looking for a job to get more money to try again. Intense competition between corporations/businesses can exist, with the losers going out of business, but not necessarily losing everything.

There are also elements of social democracy which would have no effect on creativity: socialized medicine and post-secondary education. Those two things should at no time be profit-driven enterprises. It ethically wrong that a person can get better treatment than everyone else for being rich, and wrong that they can be better educated.

If a person is rich, he can buy most material pleasures, he can start more businesses to get richer or expand his current enterprise, he can basically do whatever he wants. So why should he have better access to things everyone needs to either live or succeed when he has all the resources to do both already?

Don't tell me he earned it; he had an idea and got people to work for him, he played the stock market, he won the lottery, or he climbed a corporate ladder. All this while people shovel muck or work in factories or build infrastructure, generally working much harder than him for less pay. Not that this is wrong, but if he earned it, so did they, and they didn't get it.

The "don't tell me he earned it", and "they earned it too" stuff is where you lose me. People like to think they work as hard and sacrifice as much as others, but often they do not, nor do they have any idea what it really takes. They're guessing, they have no idea. And those who do sacrifice and work hard are far more likely to succeed than someone who does not.

Most people, especially here, who think like that have never created, built and run a successful businesses. They're jealous and convince themselves that they put out just as much effort as their boss has, that they have risked as much as their boss has, that they have sacrificed as much as their boss has. Most likely, not even close. Not even in the same hemisphere.

They have not a clue.

But it makes them feel better about themselves and makes them easy targets for political manipulation.

.

.

Physical labor is harder than what they've done. No matter how big a risk they took, no matter how long it took them or how much office work they did, it will never amount to a career of manual labor.

Who cares? I can get a machine to do most physical labor. I can replace almost every menial labor job out there with mechanization. "Hard" work doesn't equal good work. It's just hard.

There are quite literally BILLIONS of people out there who can dig ditches. There are very few who can build a bridge that won't fall down, or plumb your home, or run electricity for your house.

Pay is based on availability of workers able to do a particular job. The fewer the workers, the higher the pay. That's life. Get used to it.

 

[westwall]

The government needs to reign in multinational corporations and leave the rest of us alone. That would see the biggest positive economic impact and the most benefit for the general public.

There is TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF INDIVIDUALS, AND SMALL COMPANIES.

Sure, but what is meant by "reign in" and can we trust gov't officials to do it without sliding into socialism? 'Tis a slippery slope, son.

Yes we can, if we can get more than a quarter of the country voting and make government corruption more difficult through legislation and demonetizing elections. Socialism=/=Communism, and it's not even a bad thing, though it goes further than my belief.

Socialist countries always fail, and fairly quickly. Better read up on your history.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How do I vote for "A & B together"?

 

[SAYIT]

Mostly true, but the fairness isn't necessarily reducing creativity, it's creating an environment where people can try and fail, and not have the failure last the rest of their lives. If a person's business venture fails and he loses everything, he can have welfare to pay for his needs while retraining and looking for a job to get more money to try again. Intense competition between corporations/businesses can exist, with the losers going out of business, but not necessarily losing everything.

There are also elements of social democracy which would have no effect on creativity: socialized medicine and post-secondary education. Those two things should at no time be profit-driven enterprises. It ethically wrong that a person can get better treatment than everyone else for being rich, and wrong that they can be better educated.

If a person is rich, he can buy most material pleasures, he can start more businesses to get richer or expand his current enterprise, he can basically do whatever he wants. So why should he have better access to things everyone needs to either live or succeed when he has all the resources to do both already?

Don't tell me he earned it; he had an idea and got people to work for him, he played the stock market, he won the lottery, or he climbed a corporate ladder. All this while people shovel muck or work in factories or build infrastructure, generally working much harder than him for less pay. Not that this is wrong, but if he earned it, so did they, and they didn't get it.

The "don't tell me he earned it", and "they earned it too" stuff is where you lose me. People like to think they work as hard and sacrifice as much as others, but often they do not, nor do they have any idea what it really takes. They're guessing, they have no idea. And those who do sacrifice and work hard are far more likely to succeed than someone who does not.

Most people, especially here, who think like that have never created, built and run a successful businesses. They're jealous and convince themselves that they put out just as much effort as their boss has, that they have risked as much as their boss has, that they have sacrificed as much as their boss has. Most likely, not even close. Not even in the same hemisphere.

They have not a clue.

But it makes them feel better about themselves and makes them easy targets for political manipulation.

Physical labor is harder than what they've done. No matter how big a risk they took, no matter how long it took them or how much office work they did, it will never amount to a career of manual labor.

So our national pay scale should be based on who does the most physical labor. Got it. Your posts get sillier by the moment.

 

[SAYIT]

The "don't tell me he earned it", and "they earned it too" stuff is where you lose me. People like to think they work as hard and sacrifice as much as others, but often they do not, nor do they have any idea what it really takes. They're guessing, they have no idea. And those who do sacrifice and work hard are far more likely to succeed than someone who does not.

Most people, especially here, who think like that have never created, built and run a successful businesses. They're jealous and convince themselves that they put out just as much effort as their boss has, that they have risked as much as their boss has, that they have sacrificed as much as their boss has. Most likely, not even close. Not even in the same hemisphere.

They have not a clue.

But it makes them feel better about themselves and makes them easy targets for political manipulation.

.

.

Physical labor is harder than what they've done. No matter how big a risk they took, no matter how long it took them or how much office work they did, it will never amount to a career of manual labor.

Who cares? I can get a machine to do most physical labor. I can replace almost every menial labor job out there with mechanization. "Hard" work doesn't equal good work. It's just hard.

There are quite literally BILLIONS of people out there who can dig ditches. There are very few who can build a bridge that won't fall down, or plumb your home, or run electricity for your house.

Pay is based on availability of workers able to do a particular job. The fewer the workers, the higher the pay. That's life. Get used to it.

You make an important point. Productivity (and by extension, value) is not necessarily what one does but rather what one knows. Experience cannot be given or inherited ... it must be earned.

 

[A.S.]

Funny thing is, your explanation sounds exactly like that which Contumacious described ... gov't enforced communism wrapped in genteel "social democracy" language.

1st point: Keyword is "opportunity." Social Democracy doesn't want everyone mandated to the exact same income. Rather, college and training programs should be free to allow the same opportunities to everyone...

I love this part. Here's a few clues for you, AS, 'cause you clearly are in desperate need of some:
Too many current college grads can neither find worthwhile employment nor do they have the ambition or wherewithal to start something new and create some jobs.
There is no evidence that increasing the number of college educated will have a positive impact on our economy or that it will level the playfield and ... there is no such thing as "FREE."
Unless or until you can convince all involved in higher education to volunteer their services and find a way to make the bricks and mortar care for themselves, somebody will need to pay for all that "FREE" education.

If they can't find worthwhile employment, then that's where the people who care for the "bricks and mortar" will come from. I can tell you that, without being in giant piles of student loan debt, they will be able to recover much more quickly. They can retrain and try a different career path. Also, you're assuming that everyone will attend tax paid college. Those who don't will do more menial jobs, as college isn't compulsory.

You're also ignoring the part where I said training programs. Vocational programs that train people in trades that don't require college degrees, like construction, maintenance, again, the "bricks and mortar" you're talking about. These also aren't compulsory unless you seek a job in that field.

Also, manual labor jobs are being increasingly automated.

Yes, I know that there is no such thing as 100% free. Even gifts had to be paid for by someone else. Taxes will be needed to pay for state-run colleges, and said taxes will be much lower than the current costs of education, because private colleges are run for profit.

Sure, but what is meant by "reign in" and can we trust gov't officials to do it without sliding into socialism? 'Tis a slippery slope, son.

Yes we can, if we can get more than a quarter of the country voting and make government corruption more difficult through legislation and demonetizing elections. Socialism=/=Communism, and it's not even a bad thing, though it goes further than my belief.

Ah, that slippery slope. I am impressed that you've come out of the closet so quickly, validating the perception that those who promote a social-democrat system are really just socialists & communists at heart. No thanks.
The fact is I have lived long enough (and voted enough) to know that virtually any function which can be performed privately should neither be done by nor significantly regulated by a large, brain-dead federal bureaucracy.

First of all, "slippery slope" is a fallacy. How did I validate that perception? My whole point is that Communism ISN'T Socialism, and that Socialism isn't necessarily evil, though it goes further than my position on the issue. If Socialism is Communism, then why aren't the U.K., Norway, Sweden, Germany, Denmark, Finland all in crisis? Why are they more prosperous than America?

As in post-secondary education and training programs that are free to attend. Expanding organizations like WorkSource which helps people find jobs. Also, differing political positions tend to have some overlap.

Now read Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism. Individuals are free to study whatever and np one can interfere with their choice.


¶

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

That may be the capitalist definition, but the US isn't purely capitalist, and hasn't been since the latter half of the 19th century. That's the last time the government acted as you describe. Look at the accounts of workers at the time and the reasons for the Progressive movement as a whole, and you'll know why. Social Democracy creates a universal welfare state within a capitalist economy.

There is no such thing as "fair" in nature. Nature doesn't give a flying fuck if you're a Democrat, or a Repub, or if you're nice or if you beat puppies or not. She just doesn't care.

This concept of fair is laughable. The difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom is many of us believe that it is societies duty to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Please note, that doesn't mean it is societies duty to take care of those who WON'T take care of themselves.

Mankind spends most of its life living in tyranny of one sort or another. As children we are beholden to our parents, as adults we have to pay our taxes etc. The difference is, in a collectivist society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

In an individualistic society it doesn't matter if you're good or bad, lazy or productive, you're all treated equally poorly unless you're one of the elite.

The difference is..in a individualistic society ANYBODY can become one of the elite. I prefer to live in a society where I can advance myself and my station in life through hard work.

You people whining about fair have no idea just what that means. I suggest you educate yourselves...

Appeal to nature fallacy. What is good in nature is not necessarily good for society. If we have the ability to create a fairer society, then we should. It is society's duty to take care of EVERYONE. Not give them everything they want, but no one should have to starve out of unemployment. Just because there is a safety net for failures does not at ALL hinder your ability to become one of the elite. There is no tyranny in America right now, and most people are middle class or lower middle class. Taxes are not tyranny. I don't believe in a collectivist society. I believe in a mixed economy with a bit more regulation, along with democracy in corporations.

Society is a aspect of nature. You can only take from people for so long before they rebel. If you drive everyone down to a low level the time you have to exploit them is shorter. The USA has been around for a long time because even though the rich got richer, the poor did pretty damned good too.

Right now the poor in the USA are better off than 90% of the worlds population. That's a fact. They are able to be taken care of that well because of rich people. You keep blathering on about fairness but you don't really want fair. You want what the rich have, but are unwilling, or unable to get what they have.

Jealousy is a destructive emotion that leads you nowhere.

I have stated multiple times that rich and poor will ALWAYS exist. Social Democracy doesn't stop people from being richer than everyone else, and it doesn't drive anyone down. You think I'm "jealous" to think that healthcare and education can be free at point of use due to taxes, when there is evidence from multiple European countries that it works BETTER than what we have?

If I were jealous of the rich, I would be demanding free jet planes and mansions and every kind of luxury. I am not. I believe it is unethical for the rich to have better access to NECESSITIES, not luxuries.

The "don't tell me he earned it", and "they earned it too" stuff is where you lose me. People like to think they work as hard and sacrifice as much as others, but often they do not, nor do they have any idea what it really takes. They're guessing, they have no idea. And those who do sacrifice and work hard are far more likely to succeed than someone who does not.

Most people, especially here, who think like that have never created, built and run a successful businesses. They're jealous and convince themselves that they put out just as much effort as their boss has, that they have risked as much as their boss has, that they have sacrificed as much as their boss has. Most likely, not even close. Not even in the same hemisphere.

They have not a clue.

But it makes them feel better about themselves and makes them easy targets for political manipulation.

.

.

Physical labor is harder than what they've done. No matter how big a risk they took, no matter how long it took them or how much office work they did, it will never amount to a career of manual labor.

Who cares? I can get a machine to do most physical labor. I can replace almost every menial labor job out there with mechanization. "Hard" work doesn't equal good work. It's just hard.

There are quite literally BILLIONS of people out there who can dig ditches. There are very few who can build a bridge that won't fall down, or plumb your home, or run electricity for your house.

Pay is based on availability of workers able to do a particular job. The fewer the workers, the higher the pay. That's life. Get used to it.

If you read what you're quoting, I never mentioned income equality. I said that, by virtue of being rich, the rich have not earned better healthcare and education. My point about the laborers is analogous. If the rich have earned better healthcare and education, then so have they.

Sure, but what is meant by "reign in" and can we trust gov't officials to do it without sliding into socialism? 'Tis a slippery slope, son.

Yes we can, if we can get more than a quarter of the country voting and make government corruption more difficult through legislation and demonetizing elections. Socialism=/=Communism, and it's not even a bad thing, though it goes further than my belief.

Socialist countries always fail, and fairly quickly. Better read up on your history.

The countries you're referring to were socialist in name only. Particularly the Soviet Union, which was a totalitarian oligarchy with more parallels to Fascism than to real Socialism. If what you're saying is true, then why are England, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Australia, New Zealand, Finland, and Sweden still here? All of them are combining a welfare state within a Capitalist economy, which is the primary goal of Social Democracy.

Physical labor is harder than what they've done. No matter how big a risk they took, no matter how long it took them or how much office work they did, it will never amount to a career of manual labor.

Who cares? I can get a machine to do most physical labor. I can replace almost every menial labor job out there with mechanization. "Hard" work doesn't equal good work. It's just hard.

There are quite literally BILLIONS of people out there who can dig ditches. There are very few who can build a bridge that won't fall down, or plumb your home, or run electricity for your house.

Pay is based on availability of workers able to do a particular job. The fewer the workers, the higher the pay. That's life. Get used to it.

You make an important point. Productivity (and by extension, value) is not necessarily what one does but rather what one knows. Experience cannot be given or inherited ... it must be earned.

If productivity is what one knows, then having nonprofit, tax paid, state colleges is a good thing.

 

[A.S.]

The "don't tell me he earned it", and "they earned it too" stuff is where you lose me. People like to think they work as hard and sacrifice as much as others, but often they do not, nor do they have any idea what it really takes. They're guessing, they have no idea. And those who do sacrifice and work hard are far more likely to succeed than someone who does not.

Most people, especially here, who think like that have never created, built and run a successful businesses. They're jealous and convince themselves that they put out just as much effort as their boss has, that they have risked as much as their boss has, that they have sacrificed as much as their boss has. Most likely, not even close. Not even in the same hemisphere.

They have not a clue.

But it makes them feel better about themselves and makes them easy targets for political manipulation.

Physical labor is harder than what they've done. No matter how big a risk they took, no matter how long it took them or how much office work they did, it will never amount to a career of manual labor.

So our national pay scale should be based on who does the most physical labor. Got it. Your posts get sillier by the moment.

I never said that. My conversation with Mac was about equal access to healthcare and education. I preempted the argument that the rich have earned their better access to healthcare and education by stating that if the rich have earned it, then so have those laborers. I never once mentioned income equality. That is a tenet of Communism, and it IS contrary to freedom.