So...why are all first-world democracies, socialized democracies?

Lakryte said:

I do not need to live in a third world nation to tell you that they are not economically free, just as I didn't need to live in the USSR to tell you it wasn't economically free.

Click to expand...

Did I refer to the USSR? No? Then please don't include a strawman argument. I'm referring to the third-world nations of today, many of which ARE democracies.

What a nice story. Fact is, you don't have to live somewhere to know what policies are in place, and whether those policies advance or inhibit economic freedom.

Click to expand...

And do you know how those policies are enforced, IF they are enforced at all? For instance, drug laws in the Philippines are very strict...but I paid off the judge and my brother-in-law got out of jail. This is business as usual there. The duties on incoming household goods is 100% for new items...but it was a heck of a lot cheaper to pay off the customs agent. Minimum wage there is a bit over $2 a day...but nobody pays attention to it - it's never, ever enforced.

If someone is employed for more than six months, the company's required to provide health insurance...which is why most low-level workers at major companies are fired at the six month point and then rehired - and much of the time, this happens without the worker even realizing that it has happened. For smaller companies, they don't even worry about it at all.

That's just it, guy - you've NO CLUE. You CANNOT know what 'economic freedom' a nation has if you haven't been there, because the laws on the books often bear ZERO relation to what's actually happening out on the street.

And I already gave you an answer, which you ignored. To reiterate: "For free markets to exist there has to be a strong protection of property rights. That is nonexistent in third-world nations."

Click to expand...

Ah. You really think we have strong property rights in America? Ever hear of "eminent domain"? Or the RICO act? And - my pet peeve - HOA's, which can legally force you out of your home if you don't follow their rules to the letter? All you have to do is to piss off the most influential guy in the HOA and suddenly they start pinging you for not having everything in accordance to what the HOA rules are. And yes, I have pissed off that "most influential guy in the HOA" before, and all of a sudden I had to remove a fence I'd put up to keep my dog safe and secure.

On the other hand, I can do pretty much what I want, when I want, and how I want with my house in the Philippines.

But you're going to tell me how our property rights are so strong here? Please.

faithful_servant said:

.. you only prove my point. At that time Germany was a serious economic power in the world, giving the m the financial ability to provide the services you pointed out (which are small-scale socialism, not the large scale Socialism that you seem to want to equate them to).

Click to expand...

And you completely missed my point - Germany had such a program from the beginning, even through the years of the Weimar Republic and through the Nazi years, through the Cold War, and still has it today now that they've absorbed the poverty-ridden eastern half after the Soviet Union melted down, and became the most powerful economy in Europe.

And they did it all while having those socialist programs you decry so much.

ernst barkmann said:

the founders created a republican form of government were power in separated into 3 parts [power the ability to pass laws], democracy has power in only 1 part.

it is easy to buy and control the 1, instead of trying to buy and control the 3, because each of the 3 in not concerned and about the interest of the others, they are concerned about they interest, so for any law to be passed and signed into law, all 3 must agree to create laws which in the the interest of each other.

because there are 3 sources of power, factions combinations cannot buy and control government.....

good governments are government, that do little for the people and have maximum liberty, the more government does for the people the more it controls them, governments that use force on the people, fail in the end.

Click to expand...

So...why, then, are the nations with the highest standards of living ALL the ones with the kind of government you despise i.e. big government that does so much for the people?

Glen Contrarian said:

Did I say that we need to have radically higher taxes? Well, actually, when it comes to the very wealthy, we DO need higher taxes. I don't remember a single one of them going to the soup lines back in the 1950's when their tax rates were 90%. This isn't to say that they'll actually pay higher taxes - they'd just reinvest the vast majority of their profits back into growing their business like they did in the 1950's, thereby avoiding paying the taxes but also growing their businesses...which is good for everybody all the way down to the lowest-level workers.

That said, we don't need radically higher taxes for everyone or a government that's radically bigger than what it is. What we do need is a population that realizes that properly funding schools is NOT a waste of taxpayer money, that properly funding bridge maintenance and repair is NOT a waste of taxpayer money, that ensuring that everyone has access to quality health insurance and health care DOES pay greater dividends down the road than what it would cost now.

If you want to live in a first-world nation, then you MUST be willing to do your share to pay for what's required for that nation to maintain its first-world status: top-quality schools, good roads and bridges, regulatory agencies to keep the communities orderly and to keep corruption in check, access to health insurance and health care to keep the population relatively healthy.

Is this really such a terrible thing to consider?

Click to expand...

its so easy to sit back and demand others pay more taxes

Glen Contrarian said:

So...why, then, are the nations with the highest standards of living ALL the ones with the kind of government you despise i.e. big government that does so much for the people?

Click to expand...

highest standards of living?.........ever try to get an apartment in paris, a dark dank 800 sq feet for $1700 dollars a month.

who drives big fancy cars lives in huge houses in Europe, only the rich, you need to take a moment of time and watch HGTV'S HOUSE HUNTERS INTENTIONAL, and see what the common man lives in.

ever heard of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the man who got into trouble in NY over rapes charges, ..he was already slated to be the next president of france before that happened, he's a socialist, yet, he has money and power, and houses around the world.

i have lived in Europe for several years, its nice and many pretty places to go and see, but never would i think that they are better off then the american people.....because they are not after seeing both sides to compare....but i will say that america is slipping farther back because of our government being more and more controlled, by those with wealth/ power and want government control their way....which is what democratic forms of government DO!

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31318120

shlunka said:

No. I proposed that the people you knew weren't socialists, based on your misrepresentation of socialism (no doubt due to their misrepresentations of socialism) not due to assuming I had intimate knowledge of your social circle. Of course I accused you of condescension, you claimed that socialists (in the broad sense, I.E millions of people) didn't know their own ideology.

Click to expand...

Not at all. I claimed that, when faced with socialisms many, deep failures, socialists will attempt the No True Socialism fallacy as a debate tactic, but when attempting to claim widespread support and/or success, they will instead define "socialism" very broadly. I accused them of being inconsistent in debate, which they are.

cpwill said:

Not at all. I claimed that, when faced with socialisms many, deep failures, socialists will attempt the No True Socialism fallacy as a debate tactic, but when attempting to claim widespread support and/or success, they will instead define "socialism" very broadly. I accused them of being inconsistent in debate, which they are.

Click to expand...

Factually, however, there are few to no pure any form of government in the world today. Most have figured out that pure forms have more problems than mixed forms.

Boo Radley said:

Factually, however, there are few to no pure any form of government in the world today. Most have figured out that pure forms have more problems than mixed forms.

Click to expand...

of all the governments of the world most are controlled by oligarchies.

Glen Contrarian said:

Ah. Yet another person who refuses to give a leader credit for what happens on his watch. That's how it is, isn't it? If something happens that you like, then give the leader credit...but if it's something that goes against what you personally want to hear, never, ever give that leader credit for it, huh?

In the Navy, if a ship runs aground at zero-dark-thirty while the captain's in his bunk snoring away, at the court-martial he will say that he was personally on watch at the conn even though he was asleep in his bunk, and he will be held accountable as if he were the one personally at the conn.

Why is this? Because he was the one responsible for making doggone sure that his subordinates, from his executive officer (second-in-command) all the way down to the newest recruit on board are all properly trained and supervised and disciplined...and if he had made sure that they were all properly trained and supervised and disciplined, then the ship would never have run aground to begin with.

And so it goes in government - it is the leader's responsibility to make sure that everyone under him is properly trained, supervised, and disciplined...and if they are, the nation almost always prospers. If not, then it soon becomes corrupt and much less effective.

That's why the president is sometimes called the head (or the captain) of the ship of state. The metaphor fits better than you might think.

Click to expand...

Just because something happens while a particular person is in power doesn't mean that person in power deserves credit or blame. Your argument is one big fallacy from the start.

Second, Hitler's leadership did not cause Germany to prosper. It did, however, result in the death of millions of Jews, disabled people, and gay men and women.

TurtleDude said:

its so easy to sit back and demand others pay more taxes

Click to expand...

Yeah, those millionaires would be driven to the poorhouse, wouldn't they? They'd be standing in soup lines, just like they never did in the 1950's when their tax rate was over twice what it is now.

Glen Contrarian said:

Yeah, those millionaires would be driven to the poorhouse, wouldn't they? They'd be standing in soup lines, just like they never did in the 1950's when their tax rate was over twice what it is now.

Click to expand...

You seem to think that just because OTHERS can-in your view-afford more taxes, that justifies them paying for your desires

Glen Contrarian said:

Did I refer to the USSR? No? Then please don't include a strawman argument. I'm referring to the third-world nations of today, many of which ARE democracies.

Click to expand...

Applying your reasoning consistently is not a strawman. You said I am wrong about the state of third world economies because you have to live somewhere to know whether or not it has a free economy or not. If that is true, then you would have to have lived in the USSR to know whether or not it had a free economy or not.

Your argument is so absurd it's laughable.

And do you know how those policies are enforced, IF they are enforced at all? For instance, drug laws in the Philippines are very strict...but I paid off the judge and my brother-in-law got out of jail. This is business as usual there. The duties on incoming household goods is 100% for new items...but it was a heck of a lot cheaper to pay off the customs agent. Minimum wage there is a bit over $2 a day...but nobody pays attention to it - it's never, ever enforced.

If someone is employed for more than six months, the company's required to provide health insurance...which is why most low-level workers at major companies are fired at the six month point and then rehired - and much of the time, this happens without the worker even realizing that it has happened. For smaller companies, they don't even worry about it at all.

That's just it, guy - you've NO CLUE. You CANNOT know what 'economic freedom' a nation has if you haven't been there, because the laws on the books often bear ZERO relation to what's actually happening out on the street.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of the bribery and corruption going on in third world countries. You don't have to live to live there to know what's happening on the street. And that bribery and corruption is one of the major reasons why third world countries are not considered economically free. The one with no clue is you. You don't have to live somewhere to know what is going on there.

Ah. You really think we have strong property rights in America? Ever hear of "eminent domain"? Or the RICO act? And - my pet peeve - HOA's, which can legally force you out of your home if you don't follow their rules to the letter? All you have to do is to piss off the most influential guy in the HOA and suddenly they start pinging you for not having everything in accordance to what the HOA rules are. And yes, I have pissed off that "most influential guy in the HOA" before, and all of a sudden I had to remove a fence I'd put up to keep my dog safe and secure.

On the other hand, I can do pretty much what I want, when I want, and how I want with my house in the Philippines.

But you're going to tell me how our property rights are so strong here? Please.

Click to expand...

Yes, America has stronger property rights than third world countries in Africa. Only a mindless idiot would argue otherwise. As to your Philippines example, the Philippines scores quite low on measures of property rights.

For some examples of the horrid property rights in the Phillippines, let's just look at the actual data.

the land information system in the Philippines, including land titling and registration,is poor and inadequate (Llanto and Ballesteros, 2002). Information about ownership, boundaries, location, land uses and land values cannot be provided in a systematic way in many local governments. Thus fraud ocurrs in land titling and conflicts over land ownership can take years to be solved. There are almost 20 agencies involved in land administration with poor coordination among them, inadequate legal framework, and inefficient records management. The cadastral information is also inadequate and the information available is not easily accessible.

Click to expand...

I also suggest you look into CARP, which is a law regulating land heavily in the Philippines. CARP limits the amount of land people can own, and even sets the value of land (government setting the value of land is not free markets, in case you are wondering). For decades, CARP and similar programs have attempted to forcefully redistribute land in the Philippines.

Not only have you proved beyond a doubt you are ignorant of history, you don't even have a clue what is going on in the real world today.

leaving aside your far premature declaration that america is "most successful nation in history," i would say it's the way it is because it's what the majority needed in times of emergency, and they've become too ingrained and enormous to do away with, as well as wildly popular. The insistence that people, banks, and auto companies don't want huge social programs and bailouts is a right wing fantasy.

True, some are in deep denial about it, as their so called "values" conflict with their dependence on those programs - ex: "get your government hands off my medicare." That is a far fetch, though, from saying they'd vote for any politician who proposed to end medicare or social security

ernst barkmann said:

highest standards of living?.........ever try to get an apartment in paris, a dark dank 800 sq feet for $1700 dollars a month.

who drives big fancy cars lives in huge houses in Europe, only the rich, you need to take a moment of time and watch HGTV'S HOUSE HUNTERS INTENTIONAL, and see what the common man lives in.

ever heard of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the man who got into trouble in NY over rapes charges, ..he was already slated to be the next president of france before that happened, he's a socialist, yet, he has money and power, and houses around the world.

i have lived in Europe for several years, its nice and many pretty places to go and see, but never would i think that they are better off then the american people.....because they are not after seeing both sides to compare....but i will say that america is slipping farther back because of our government being more and more controlled, by those with wealth/ power and want government control their way....which is what democratic forms of government DO!

BBC News - Strauss-Kahn: Only 12 sex parties in three years

Click to expand...

I would never have expected you to say their homes were better off...but the home one lives in does not in and of itself determine one's standard of living. For instance, who's better traveled - us, or them? Who's got better access to healthcare for ALL the people, us, or them? Who has more time off to spend with their families, us, or them? Who's got mandated pregnancy leave and mandatory sick leave, us, or them? Who for the most part doesn't need a car in order to easily get to the places they want to go, us, or them?

And FYI, my wife and I watch HHI a great deal - because we're looking forward very much to the day we can travel over there and in other places around the world...and we laugh at our fellow Americans on there who have no clue what a bidet is (while remembering the days when I was just as ignorant), or why bars on windows is usually a good thing, or how one doesn't need a hugely spacious domicile in order to live a very comfortable life (and it's the Americans and Australians who seem to most often complain that the residence is too small). What infuriates me on there is when the Americans look down their noses and almost insultingly remark how bad this or that is, because they obviously don't realize that living in a different nation usually requires a completely different attitude towards how people live their lives in general.

The US is not a socialized democracy. We have no universal healthcare and no free college education.

Glen Contrarian said:

Yeah, those millionaires would be driven to the poorhouse, wouldn't they? They'd be standing in soup lines, just like they never did in the 1950's when their tax rate was over twice what it is now.

Click to expand...

even though taxes rates were very high back in the 40's 50s' and people didn't pay those rates......because there were hundreds and hundreds of tax shelters, to reduce the rates.

rates were lowered to 70% about 1965, and Reagan lowered them further, because he stated its stupid to have hundreds of thousands of pages of tax law......for the purpose of having shelters.

why have high rates, yet give people tax shelters to reduce those rates, .....why not reduce the tax rates, eliminate the shelters, and cut the tax paper work.

Glen Contrarian said:

I would never have expected you to say their homes were better off...but the home one lives in does not in and of itself determine one's standard of living. For instance, who's better traveled - us, or them? Who's got better access to healthcare for ALL the people, us, or them? Who has more time off to spend with their families, us, or them? Who's got mandated pregnancy leave and mandatory sick leave, us, or them? Who for the most part doesn't need a car in order to easily get to the places they want to go, us, or them?

And FYI, my wife and I watch HHI a great deal - because we're looking forward very much to the day we can travel over there and in other places around the world...and we laugh at our fellow Americans on there who have no clue what a bidet is (while remembering the days when I was just as ignorant), or why bars on windows is usually a good thing, or how one doesn't need a hugely spacious domicile in order to live a very comfortable life (and it's the Americans and Australians who seem to most often complain that the residence is too small). What infuriates me on there is when the Americans look down their noses and almost insultingly remark how bad this or that is, because they obviously don't realize that living in a different nation usually requires a completely different attitude towards how people live their lives in general.

Click to expand...

you seemed to me more concerned about what you can receive , then your own liberty and making your own way in the world.

TurtleDude said:

You seem to think that just because OTHERS can-in your view-afford more taxes, that justifies them paying for your desires

Click to expand...

Are the massively wealthy ever going to grow up and acknowledge they're in their position due to help, or at the very least acquiescence, from others? The idea of the "self made man" who doesn't have to abide the social contract at all, nor rely on the overall financial system, is pretty laughable.

The billionaire bridge owner in detroit should absolutely be made to repair I-94. It leads thousands everyday right to his ****ing bridge. Likewise with the city that is crumbling all around it. No one arrives at the title of billionaire without exploitation. THAT is what justifies higher taxes

If they don't like it, go make billions in zambia. Where the hell else will allow this?

chromium said:

Are the massively wealthy ever going to grow up and acknowledge they're in their position due to help, or at the very least acquiescence, from others? The idea of the "self made man" who doesn't have to abide the social contract at all, nor rely on the overall financial system, is pretty laughable.

The billionaire bridge owner in detroit should absolutely be made to repair I-94. It leads thousands everyday right to his ****ing bridge. Likewise with the city that is crumbling all around it. No one arrives at the title of billionaire without exploitation. THAT is what justifies higher taxes

If they don't like it, go make billions in zambia. Where the hell else will allow this?

Click to expand...

liberalism these days tends to be a quest to justify taking from others and pretending the common good, rather than envy is the motivation

the top 5% pay more income taxes than the rest of the country. they do more the enough

ernst barkmann said:

of all the governments of the world most are controlled by oligarchies.

Click to expand...

I might not argue with that, though I haven't seen the evidence.

ernst barkmann said:

even though taxes rates were very high back in the 40's 50s' and people didn't pay those rates......because there were hundreds and hundreds of tax shelters, to reduce the rates.

rates were lowered to 70% about 1965, and Reagan lowered them further, because he stated its stupid to have hundreds of thousands of pages of tax law......for the purpose of having shelters.

why have high rates, yet give people tax shelters to reduce those rates, .....why not reduce the tax rates, eliminate the shelters, and cut the tax paper work.

Click to expand...

I'd love to eliminate the tax shelters and cut the tax paperwork - of course I would! But the idea that we will get more tax revenue by lowering the tax rates is, as George H. W. Bush so eloquently (and accurately) stated, "voodoo economics".

Lakryte said:

Applying your reasoning consistently is not a strawman. You said I am wrong about the state of third world economies because you have to live somewhere to know whether or not it has a free economy or not. If that is true, then you would have to have lived in the USSR to know whether or not it had a free economy or not.

Your argument is so absurd it's laughable.


I am well aware of the bribery and corruption going on in third world countries. You don't have to live to live there to know what's happening on the street. And that bribery and corruption is one of the major reasons why third world countries are not considered economically free. The one with no clue is you. You don't have to live somewhere to know what is going on there.


Yes, America has stronger property rights than third world countries in Africa. Only a mindless idiot would argue otherwise. As to your Philippines example, the Philippines scores quite low on measures of property rights.

For some examples of the horrid property rights in the Phillippines, let's just look at the actual data.



I also suggest you look into CARP, which is a law regulating land heavily in the Philippines. CARP limits the amount of land people can own, and even sets the value of land (government setting the value of land is not free markets, in case you are wondering). For decades, CARP and similar programs have attempted to forcefully redistribute land in the Philippines.

Not only have you proved beyond a doubt you are ignorant of history, you don't even have a clue what is going on in the real world today.

Click to expand...

Wow. You go through that whole argument pointing out this law or that law...and you have zero clue as to what it's really like. You don't know, and you can't know.

Tell you what - why don't you find an immigrant from a third-world nation and try telling him what life is like there. Oh, he might agree with you to your face to make you feel better and to avoid confrontation...but inside he'll be calling you an idiot.

TurtleDude said:

You seem to think that just because OTHERS can-in your view-afford more taxes, that justifies them paying for your desires

Click to expand...

I'm not asking them to pay for 'my desires'. I'm asking them to pay their fair share of the taxes that are necessary to provide and maintain the infrastructure of this nation...especially when the rich ALWAYS use more of our nation's infrastructure per person than the rest of us do. Use more of the infrastructure, pay more in taxes. What the heck is wrong with that?

Boo Radley said:

I might not argue with that, though I haven't seen the evidence.

Click to expand...

don't people say our government is bought and paid for?

ernst barkmann said:

don't people say our government is bought and paid for?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that's evidence, what people say. But I did say I might not argue with you on it.