The Limits of the Welfare State

[dropthatcash]

Re: The Limits of the Welfare State

"Government's limited purpose is to protect the exercise of natural rights that pre-exist government"

Beautiful!

[Verrocchio]

Re: The Limits of the Welfare State

Sorry, but I take issue with two points from this discussion.

1. Yes, progressivism, whatever that loaded terms is intended to mean, stands for improvement, and that necessarily means abandoning aspects of the old. Wouldn't it have for a more productive discussion if the specific details of the Founders' governmental philosophy that have been left behind could have been identified? These vague complaints obfuscate rather than encourage meaningful discussion. In the absence of better explanation, then surely, no individual who presently enjoys the many conveniences and pleasantries of modern life would oppose progress!

2. Partisan finger-pointing is never an aid to intelligent discussion. Left- right-, or moderate-administration seem to all have dismal records in governance of the USA. Look how Obama has expanded the federal deficit! But wait, look how badly W overspent during his two terms. He took federal expenditures from 18.4% of GDP to 20.5% in 2008! Both have made themselves targets for my criticism.

[chr5648]

Re: The Limits of the Welfare State

Sorry, but I take issue with two points from this discussion.

1. Yes, progressivism, whatever that loaded terms is intended to mean, stands for improvement, and that necessarily means abandoning aspects of the old. Wouldn't it have for a more productive discussion if the specific details of the Founders' governmental philosophy that have been left behind could have been identified? These vague complaints obfuscate rather than encourage meaningful discussion. In the absence of better explanation, then surely, no individual who presently enjoys the many conveniences and pleasantries of modern life would oppose progress!

2. Partisan finger-pointing is never an aid to intelligent discussion. Left- right-, or moderate-administration seem to all have dismal records in governance of the USA. Look how Obama has expanded the federal deficit! But wait, look how badly W overspent during his two terms. He took federal expenditures from 18.4% of GDP to 20.5% in 2008! Both have made themselves targets for my criticism.

1. I have yet to see empirical evidence of progressivism working and providing 'progress'.

2. Where empirical evidence is present, in regards to bush's or obama's behavior, it is very rarely pointed out and most of the time the usual left vs. right talking points are pushed.

[Chomsky]

Re: The Limits of the Welfare State

1. I have yet to see empirical evidence of progressivism working and providing 'progress'.

Right, women's right to vote, the Civil Rights movement, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, even food stamps, etc., none of those have improved the quality of life or mitigated disaster for ordinary people.

[Aetius Romulous]

Re: The Limits of the Welfare State

1. I have yet to see empirical evidence of progressivism working and providing 'progress'.

I suggest the opposite - a lack of evidence that any state has survived at all without it, if indeed, any such state has ever existed.

[chr5648]

Re: The Limits of the Welfare State

Right, women's right to vote, the Civil Rights movement, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, even food stamps, etc., none of those have improved the quality of life or mitigated disaster for ordinary people.

I would argue the first 2 you pointed out (womens rights and the civil rights movement) were the continuation of natural law and its evolution in america, and not necessarily progressivism. I am not sure but I am assuming the US was one of the first to give women the right to vote and the civil rights movement was unique to america since it is a 'melting pot' and does not have a homogeneous population. Once again it seems to me to be a continuation of the evolution of natural law.

The other 4 you mentioned seem like progressive causes.

1. Social security - My theory on it, was that it was created as a back stop to force people from thinking past-present-future. From saving in the good times to prepare for the bad to a mentality which was fully focused on the present, materialism, and consumption. If you don't have to worry about saving you can consume.
Here is some evidence on the failure of social security. http://perotcharts.com/category/chal...cial-security/ its those pesky perot charts, 14 of them under social security flip through them and see for yourself. Medicare also in there.

The real crime is the dependence old people are forced into, on the money and the voting for benefits.

2) Medicare - I don't know much about it but, the charts don't look too good http://perotcharts.com/category/chal...-and-medicaid/

3) unemployment insurance - a.k.a. paying people not to work, and another forced consumption program. Whatever happened to saving in the good times and being prepared for the bad times. The progs want to keep their UI so badly their willing to privatize at this point http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time....ent-insurance/ I would also suggest searching out other sources besides this anecdotal example.

4) food stamps - one big ass subsidy to the food, corn, agricultural, etc, lobby. There are 40 million americans on food stamps. Now lets divide that into a hypothetical 10 million families of 4 people. Lets say they buy one loaf of bread a week, make it a whole grain bread at $3 a loaf. So thats 10 million loafs of bread. Your telling me the government can't get a better price on 10 million loafs of bread than $3/loaf. This is just one example, what about the butter, OJ, fruits, vegetables, and other food products. The government can buy prescription drugs for medicaid at the lowest bid, many times you will see high prices for drugs just so that pharma won't be forced to sell at low prices to .gov. If they can do it for drugs then they can do so for food too. Not to mention most of the people on food stamps are probably buying chip, soda, and other corn based products, which is nothing more than a subsidy to the corn lobby.

[Rajiv]

Re: The Limits of the Welfare State

I would argue the first 2 you pointed out (womens rights and the civil rights movement) were the continuation of natural law and its evolution in america, and not necessarily progressivism. I am not sure but I am assuming the US was one of the first to give women the right to vote

Not quite correct

US granted Women suffrage in 1920 much after many other countries.

From Women's suffrage

Women's suffrage or woman suffrage^[1] is the right of women to vote and to run for office. The expression is also used for the economic and political reform movement aimed at extending these rights to women^[2] and without any restrictions or qualifications such as property ownership, payment of tax, or marital status. The movement's modern origins are attributed to 18th century France. In 1906, Finland was the first nation in the world to give full suffrage (the right to vote and to run for office) to all citizens, including women. New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant all citizens the right to vote, in 1893
.
.
.
.
.
The modern movement for women's suffrage originated in France in the 1780s and 1790s, where Antoine Condorcet and Olympe de Gouges advocated women's suffrage in national elections. In medieval France and several other European countries, voting for city and town assemblies and meetings was open to the heads of households. In Sweden, during the age of liberty between 1718 and 1771, women were permitted to vote if they were tax paying guild-members. Women were entitled to vote in the Corsican Republic in 1755 whose Constitution stipulated a national representative assembly elected by all inhabitants over the age of 25, both women (if unmarried or widowed) and men.^{[citation needed]} Women's suffrage was ended when France annexed the island in 1769.

In 1756, Lydia Chapin Taft became the first woman to vote in America.^[3] She voted on at least three occasions in an open New England Town Meeting, at Uxbridge, Massachusetts, with the consent of the electorate. This was between 1756 and 1768, during America's colonial period.^[4]

Women in New Jersey could vote (with the same property qualifications as for men, although, since married women did not own property in their own right, only unmarried women and widows qualified) under the state constitution of 1776, where the word "inhabitants" was used without qualification of sex or race. New Jersey women, along with "aliens...persons of color, or negroes," lost the vote in 1807, when the franchise was restricted to white males, ostensibly, to combat electoral fraud by simplifying the conditions for eligibility.

Women in Pitcairn Islands could vote from 1838. Various countries, colonies and states granted restricted women's suffrage in the latter half of the nineteenth century, starting with South Australia in 1861. The 1871 Paris Commune granted voting rights to women, but they were taken away with the fall of the Commune and would only be granted again in July 1944 by Charles de Gaulle (at that time most of France—including Paris—was under Nazi occupation; Paris was liberated the following month). The Pacific colony of Franceville, declaring independence in 1889, became the first self-governing nation to practice universal suffrage without distinction of sex or color;^[5] however, it soon came back under French and British colonial rule.

Unrestricted women's suffrage in terms of voting rights (women were not initially permitted to stand for election) in a self-governing colony was granted in New Zealand in the early 1890s. Following a movement led by Kate Sheppard, the women's suffrage bill was adopted mere weeks before the general election of 1893.

The self-governing colony of South Australia granted both universal suffrage and allowed women to stand for the colonial parliament in 1895.^[6] The Commonwealth of Australia provided this for women in Federal elections from 1902 (except Aboriginal women). The first European country to introduce women's suffrage was the Grand Duchy of Finland. The administrative reforms following the 1905 uprising granted Finnish women the right both to vote (universal and equal suffrage) and to stand for election in 1906. The world's first female members of parliament were also in Finland, when on 1907, 19 women took up their places in the Parliament of Finland as a result of the 1907 parliamentary elections.

Of currently existing independent countries, New Zealand was the first to give women the right to vote in 1893 when it was a self-governing British colony.^[7] Similarly, the colony of South Australia enacted legislation giving women the vote in 1894. Places with similar status which granted women the vote include Wyoming Territory (1869). Other possible contenders for first "country" to grant female suffrage include the Corsican Republic, the Isle of Man (1881), the Pitcairn Islands, and Franceville, but some of these had brief existences as independent states and others were not clearly independent. Australia extended this right in 1901 to some women, and then in 1902 to all non-Aboriginal women. Sweden is also a contestant for being the first independent nation to grant women the right to vote. Conditional female suffrage was granted in Sweden during the age of liberty (1718–1771), but this right was restricted and did not apply to women in general.^[8]