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 , 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.
Capitalizt
I prefer freedom, so NO to the welfare state.
Sexy_Warden87
Yeah, me 2... but at the same time its' no secret that there exsistsa great deal of injustice in the US. Denmark and Sweden are a lot more equal society but of course our system has disadvanteges aswell.
erdega
socialist and/or welfare state makes sense only for so long until it becomes a burden and should be transformed into a more free, individualist state where individuals are responsible for themselves and cream rises to the top and consequently enriches all the others . If there is a failure to allow people more individualis and freedom then the economy and ideas become stagnant . My conclusion is that socaialism is needed when there is a crisis and no opportunity but is in no way a long term solution . After that , people want to create and manage their own lives and with minimal but effective regulation from government
Dj Tomer
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
I prefer freedom, so NO to the welfare state.
Arbiter
The U.S. is hardly an example of a libertarian state. The government spending is completely out of control, and many industries are micro-managed to an absurd degree with various regulations. Don't let the fact that we go into debt instead of paying for our expenses by raising taxes fool you.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
The U.S. is hardly an example of a libertarian state. The government spending is completely out of control, and many industries are micro-managed to an absurd degree with various regulations. Don't let the fact that we go into debt instead of paying for our expenses by raising taxes fool you.
and lets not forget that the US has some of the most repressive social laws as well.
OurManFlint
The US is not a Liberatarian state. In fact, the US is far from it. I see more individual freedoms being allowed to be practiced outside the borders of the US. Economic freedoms go further in the US, but in terms of individual freedoms, nah. This is caused in part by the highly litigious system that almost forces laws to be made, restricting individual freedoms.
HardTranceProd
quote:
Originally posted by OurManFlint
The US is not a Liberatarian state. In fact, the US is far from it. I see more individual freedoms being allowed to be practiced outside the borders of the US. Economic freedoms go further in the US, but in terms of individual freedoms, nah. This is caused in part by the highly litigious system that almost forces laws to be made, restricting individual freedoms.
Absolutely. An extremely insightful post, but many people (even living in the US) are unaware of this.
DJFreaq
quote:
Originally posted by OurManFlint
The US is not a Liberatarian state. In fact, the US is far from it. I see more individual freedoms being allowed to be practiced outside the borders of the US. Economic freedoms go further in the US, but in terms of individual freedoms, nah. This is caused in part by the highly litigious system that almost forces laws to be made, restricting individual freedoms.
You can buy psychedelic mushrooms from a company.
But you can't grow them and use them personally.
It's like having a half eaten cake, and not being allowed to finish it.
Lilith
It's easy too make a lot of money in the US thats for sure, provided you have some too start off with and the tax system is something of a red tape nightmare but nowhere near as much as some countries like northern europe or oceania.
Fact is though, if you dont have any money in the US its pretty damn hard too get a start in life and from the few people I met in the US they where either unhappy with their lot in life, struggling too make ends meet or completely apathetic and ignorant too anyone elses condition, be it the world or just their neighbours.
I guess the apathetic and ignorant where happy enough, they where either too stupid or selfish too realise any different but thats not something endemic too the US, you can find that anywhere.
Liberal countries tended to be harder too make a lot of money in them, its also easier too get started in life with less money and make a go of it. Aside from that theyre socially a lot easier too live with and while they grumble as much as the next person they dont have too much too complain about, not a psychologist but I think they have a lot less personal stress and anger as a result.
St_Andrew
I would prefer a libertarian state, but I don't think US is a good example of it at all (as many already pointed out, especially the social part).
I still think Sweden and Denmark has a lot more sensible policies even on several economic issues though.
