| the2real4mafol said: 1. What's the point in elections then? Might as well be a one party state like China then |
Democracy does have value. It is the best way to make power accountable to the people without resorting to armed revolution. But it also doesn't scale well and is as prone to corruption as any other system.
| the2real4mafol said: 2. No wonder, people don't generally bother with politics like they used to, especially in western countries. You make it sound like a con artists game. |
It is a con man's game.
| the2real4mafol said: 3. Obviously that want to make money but government surely would rip people off less than a private company as they are in theory supposed to be more accountable. |
So because they are supposed to be more accountable that makes them more accountable? Circular reasoning much?
| the2real4mafol said: At least in Bolivia, the government ain't full of greedy parasites. Look up Evo Morales. |
I will never cease to be amazed at the capacity of western leftists to romanticize Third World dictators and swallow their propaganda without even the slightest gag. For as much disdain as you have for your country and mine, you are praising a country that is far more corrupt.
| the2real4mafol said: Also, i don't get the blame on the poor. It's the rich who avoid tax and get away with it. It's the rich who outsource decent industrial jobs to Asia currently. And yet the poor and vulnerable are blamed for everything despite having no influence in the system. It's laughable and yet people believe it. |
I don't recall blaming the poor. The only mention I made of the poor was to say that many of them are rubes, which of course they are. If they weren't they likely wouldn't be poor. But all in all I don't suppose they are any more to blame for the situation than anyone else in that they'll vote for what they see as their own interest. They are simply a cheaper date than most.
| the2real4mafol said: The US welfare system doesn't compare to any European ones at all. Where's the universal health service or free university education? The US system is minimal. In Europe, it is far fairer and you get more value for more money. Also, how hasn't the welfare state moved people of poverty? Of course, you need decent jobs to help reduce poverty as well but welfare gives people a chance especially in times like this where there are clearly not enough jobs out there (of any kind). The trickle down effect seems like a myth in a developed economy. |
I'm not sure where you think I compared the stupid US system to differently stupid European ones, but never mind. How does a system of giving people money for nothing (and which frequently disincentivizes working at all by giving them less the more money they earn) move them out of poverty? It entices them to stay exactly where they are in life. Even if it raises the standard of living of the poor for today, they always remain one budgetary cut away from ruination, or so we are incessantly told.
| the2real4mafol said: Also, if you look into it. The social democratic countries in Europe are actually some of the most successful on the continent. Germany is a key example. Scandinavia is also good. |
That's a bit like being the tallest midget. If social democracy is so swell why are the Scandinavians moving away from it so hurriedly?
| the2real4mafol said: You are right that the west is in decline but not because of welfare. Europe was declining before any welfare states came about, except Prussia which isn't even a country anymore. People just had enough of us invading other countries for our own nation's gain. |
It is a bit more complex than the existence of a welfare state, of course. I think Spengler's explanation is a pretty good one, and welfare state is more of a symptom of effeteness than the cause of it (though it does in turn help to perpetuate it).
That the west is declining because people got tired of being colonized by it is pretty funny. It's just simplistic enough to be kind of adorable. Civilizations fall apart from within, not from such minor externalities.
