| the2real4mafol said: Aren't politicians supposed to give voters what they want? In a democracy they are supposed to represent us, the voting public. |
No. Politicians are supposed to run the government, and government is supposed to protect rights. You can't protect rights by violating rights, and by rewarding your supporters at the expense of everyone else you are violating rights.
| the2real4mafol said: The bigger problem is the 2 party system, especially when they are essentially the same thing. |
They are always essentially the same thing in a two party system because both parties have to gravitate towards the center and appeal to the lowest common denominator.
| the2real4mafol said: Anyway, while there are still people that are poor a welfare state is of total necessary. It's there to balance the field and give people essential services which everyone pays into. Only the state can do this, as they are the least likely to follow a profit motive above anything. Nothing wrong with making profits, but there is a problem when the system is cheated for greed like it is now. But yeah, i don't see how a welfare state can interfere with say property rights. No private property would be taken. But just remember not everyone is lucky enough to afford a house, so it's the state responsibility to give them houses or flats as the market won't help them. |
You don't see how taking from someone who works very hard and giving to someone who doesn't work very hard, or at all, is a violation of property rights?
That politicians and apparatchiks are less likely to have a profit motive is laughable, unless you have a very narrow definition of profit that is limited only to money and does not include power and influence. Even then, the D.C. area is now the richest in the country. Which is darkly amusing because the supposed reason for the remorseless growth of government over the past 70+ years has been that they have to protect us from the scary rich, but the fact of the matter is they are the scary rich. The welfare state is just an excuse for the powerful to create a spoils system, and they will give all the rubes just enough to string them along. No welfare state has ever lifted a class of people out of poverty, and a welfare state can only be successful as long as there is wealth to redistribute. The social democratic states of Europe are not so different from those of the Third World, except that there has been more wealth to shift around. But I think the western world generally has reached a state of terminal decline, in no small part because of the welfare state teaching people that wealth redistribution is more moral than wealth creation. So we have reached the end of that road, and now all the wheels are coming off of all the wagons.
