Free Society and Welfare State: is it possible to have both? (ethical, drugs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We can have a free society or a welfare state. We cannot have both.
This is one of my all time favorite quotes. The idea is that government controls on behavior inevitably follow in the wake of government largess. You want government-provided health care? The taxpayers will be none too pleased about having to foot the bill for your obesity-related health-issue, your broken leg from a motorcycle accident, or your liver disease caused by drinking. Get ready for mandatory behavior modification.
As an econ-conservative/social liberal, I have been very frustrated with the GOP at times, especially W Bush who was an econ-lib/social conservative. I used to say that I would vote democrat and put up with the high taxes if they would just give me real, Euro-style social liberalism--no sex police raiding my favorite strip club, no war on drugs, etc.
But after further reflection, I reversed course. If we are going to have the welfare state, which apparently we are, I want the nanny state to go with it. I don't want to end up paying an 80% effective tax rate to pay for druggies' rehab, bikers' broken bones, etc.
This is one of my all time favorite quotes. The idea is that government controls on behavior inevitably follow in the wake of government largess. You want government-provided health care? The taxpayers will be none too pleased about having to foot the bill for your obesity-related health-issue, your broken leg from a motorcycle accident, or your liver disease caused by drinking. Get ready for mandatory behavior modification.
As an econ-conservative/social liberal, I have been very frustrated with the GOP at times, especially W Bush who was an econ-lib/social conservative. I used to say that I would vote democrat and put up with the high taxes if they would just give me real, Euro-style social liberalism--no sex police raiding my favorite strip club, no war on drugs, etc.
But after further reflection, I reversed course. If we are going to have the welfare state, which apparently we are, I want the nanny state to go with it. I don't want to end up paying an 80% effective tax rate to pay for druggies' rehab, bikers' broken bones, etc.
Government is essentially the negation of liberty. -Ludwig Von Mises
Governemtn should limit herself to punishing violence and fraud. Once she does more, she commits violence and fraud against her own people. Economist Gary North.
Absolute freedom is incompatible with ethical behavior. People are social creatures and fulfilled when we act ethically and choose governments that constrain absolute freedom with respect for individual rights and shared social responsibilities. Social democracy, not neo-liberalism or anarcho-capitalism (libertarianism).
Libertarianism refutes itself because property rights are not absolute. Property exists because somebody squats on the resource first, but beyond this it is difficult to justify property ownership being an absolute right beyond conventionality; what authority would give a property owner that right? The individual? Lex talonis, which is no law at all. God? Then religious epistemology comes into the picture, maybe its the Catholic God with the "preferential option for the poor"? It can only be the state that properly creates the social contract for property to have meaning.
This is one of my all time favorite quotes. The idea is that government controls on behavior inevitably follow in the wake of government largess. You want government-provided health care? The taxpayers will be none too pleased about having to foot the bill for your obesity-related health-issue, your broken leg from a motorcycle accident, or your liver disease caused by drinking. Get ready for mandatory behavior modification.
As an econ-conservative/social liberal, I have been very frustrated with the GOP at times, especially W Bush who was an econ-lib/social conservative. I used to say that I would vote democrat and put up with the high taxes if they would just give me real, Euro-style social liberalism--no sex police raiding my favorite strip club, no war on drugs, etc.
But after further reflection, I reversed course. If we are going to have the welfare state, which apparently we are, I want the nanny state to go with it. I don't want to end up paying an 80% effective tax rate to pay for druggies' rehab, bikers' broken bones, etc.
Talk me out of this...????
I agree with you, I'd also like to have a strongly liberal euro style government that have proven to be successful, but that is highly unlikely going to happen.
The misconception is that this nanny state and handouts are all going to the lazy freeloaders, but the real truth is the overwhelming amount goes to the rich and large corporations.
The country as a whole has been drifting further and further to the right for at least the past 30 years. We essentially have a corporatist/fascist government. We have a center/right democratic party and a hard right GOP. Breaking up the handouts to the rich and trying to stop the tax payer from paying for it isn't going to happen unless somehow a third party or strong progressive administration is in power.
I agree with you, I'd also like to have a strongly liberal euro style government that have proven to be successful, but that is highly unlikely going to happen.
The misconception is that this nanny state and handouts are all going to the lazy freeloaders, but the real truth is the overwhelming amount goes to the rich and large corporations.
The country as a whole has been drifting further and further to the right for at least the past 30 years. We essentially have a corporatist/fascist government. We have a center/right democratic party and a hard right GOP. Breaking up the handouts to the rich and trying to stop the tax payer from paying for it isn't going to happen unless somehow a third party or strong progressive administration is in power.
So you're suggesting the rich pay the majority of the federal taxes just so it can come right back to them? Can you give an example of these handouts to the rich or how much of federal spending they account for?
As for welfare, I think it should be a hand-up, not an enabling hand-out as it is now. It should also be vastly cut and reserved for those who truly need it. The more the government provides, the more dependent folks become, and no doubt dependence lends the caretaker control therefore hindering freedom in an ultimately unnecessary way. We certainly don't need the centralized fed having that kind of control and each state should be providing its own welfare as it sees fit.
This is one of my all time favorite quotes. The idea is that government controls on behavior inevitably follow in the wake of government largess. You want government-provided health care? The taxpayers will be none too pleased about having to foot the bill for your obesity-related health-issue, your broken leg from a motorcycle accident, or your liver disease caused by drinking. Get ready for mandatory behavior modification.
As an econ-conservative/social liberal, I have been very frustrated with the GOP at times, especially W Bush who was an econ-lib/social conservative. I used to say that I would vote democrat and put up with the high taxes if they would just give me real, Euro-style social liberalism--no sex police raiding my favorite strip club, no war on drugs, etc.
But after further reflection, I reversed course. If we are going to have the welfare state, which apparently we are, I want the nanny state to go with it. I don't want to end up paying an 80% effective tax rate to pay for druggies' rehab, bikers' broken bones, etc.
Talk me out of this...????
I don't think we can have both but we are a welfare state and things are looking pretty bad. As the welfare population rapidly increases and outnumbers the ability of the productive sector to support it, everything will collapse.
I don't think we can have both but we are a welfare state and things are looking pretty bad. As the welfare population rapidly increases and outnumbers the ability of the productive sector to support it, everything will collapse.
We're getting to that point quicker than we think.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
