|
Welfare state (Scandinavia) vs Liberatarien state (US)
I can't decide which one I prefer.
Plz discuss and describe pros and cons for your specific model.
ME:
I live in a Welfare state and, yes, I have to agree that we are indeed mad in Denmark and Sweden to have such high taxation (for instance, when you have an income in Denmark above 500.000 kr which is 86.117 dollar you have to pay 60 % in tax - gansta shit, huh?) - but we get free health services, plus, school and university are also free.
Arguments in favour of a Welfare state:
* humanitarian - the right to the basic necessities of life is a fundamental human right, and people should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily through lack of provision.
* democratic - the gradual extension of social protection is increasingly favoured by the citizens of mature economies, who have approved these as part of political election campaign promises.
* ethical - reciprocity (or fair exchange) is nearly universal as a moral principle, and most welfare systems are based around patterns of generalised exchange.
* altruism - helping others is a moral obligation in most cultures; charity and support for people who cannot help themselves are also widely thought to be moral choices.
* utilitarian - the same amount of money will produce greater happiness in the hands of a less well-off person than if given to a well-off person; thus, redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor will increase the total happiness in society.
* religious - most major world religions emphasise the importance of social organization rather than personal development alone. Religious obligations include the duty of charity and the obligation for solidarity.
* mutual self-interest - several national systems have developed voluntarily through the growth of mutual insurance.
* economic - social programs perform a range of economic functions, including e.g. the regulation of demand and structuring the labour market.
* social - social programs are used to promote objectives regarding education, family and work.
* market failure – in certain cases, the private sector fails to meet social objectives or to deliver efficient production, due to such things as monopolies, oligopolies, or asymmetric information.
* economies of scale - some services can be more efficiently paid for when bought "in bulk" by the governement for the public, rather than purchased by individual consumers. The highway system, water distribution, the fire department, universal health, and national defense are some examples.
Arguments against:
* moral (compulsion) – libertarians believe that the "nanny state" infringes upon individual freedom, forcing the individual to subsidize the consumption of others. They argue that social spending reduces the right of individuals to transfer some of their wealth to others, and is tantamount to a seizure of private property.
* religious/paternalism – Some Protestant Christians also believe that only voluntary giving (through private charities) is virtuous. They hold personal responsibility to be a virtue, and they believe that a welfare state diminishes the capacity of individuals to develop this virtue.
* anti-regulatory - the welfare state is accused of imposing greater burdens on private businesses, of potentially slowing growth and creating unemployment.
* efficiency - advocates of the free market believe that it leads to more efficient and effective production and service delivery than state-run welfare programs. They argue that high social spending is costly and must be funded out of higher levels of taxation. According to Friedrich Hayek, the market mechanism is much more efficient and able to respond to specific circumstances of a large number of individuals than the State.
* motivation and incentives - the welfare state may have undesirable effects on behavior, fostering dependency, destroying incentives and sapping motivation to work.
___________________
Gør dig umage
|
