Hitler and Bush...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kidicious
A welfare state is expensive and doesn't always eliminate poverty though. Usually because the govt screws it up. The problem is that it tends to pay people for not working. Don't get me wrong though, I'm for welfare.

Yes, valid concerns. We have our work cut out for us, it seems. I would say that only working people should be on welfare for more than a very short period of time... the government does tend to mess this up, but that doesn't mean the situation is intractable.

[orange]

whould a Provisional Government led Russia been able to defeat Germany, and yes, I think they would have

Are you talking WWI or WWII...in either case, you're wrong.

WWI - your hypothesis was tested and failed.
WWII - your hypothesis would assume that the provisional government isn't provisional anymore...not to mention that it assumes the communists didn't take over and sign Brest-Litovsk with Germany. Who knows how much worse it could have been for Russia if the Bolsheviks never seized power in Nov. 1917.

[ThePlagueRat]

With welfare, I was not suggesting pay for not working.
More like rights for more holidays and leaves, security at work, free health care, free education, free dental care, and other welfare goods the community can budget for, and those most neccessary our law should ensure! So local communties must also have a solid economy. Kinda self-sufficent is the best.

Yeah, national governments tends to screw it up, and it makes people angry. Local governments are not managing their economy pretty well either. It's what happens here these days.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Yes, valid concerns. We have our work cut out for us, it seems. I would say that only working people should be on welfare for more than a very short period of time... the government does tend to mess this up, but that doesn't mean the situation is intractable.

The best way is to maintain a lower unemployment rate. The system works the way it does because there aren't enough jobs.

[Cyclotron]

I feel it is necessary to provide some basic level of social services to ensure that people can all realize their capacity and try their hand at being an entrepreneur, making themselves better through capitalism. For me, this is basic free healthcare, education, and standard rights to keep people out of abysmal poverty.

[Az]

Uber: The Kibbutzim are failing. After 3 generations, the children are moving to the city, the economies of the kibbutzim are a disaster and all in all that experiment is nearing its end.

That's more that 3 generations. And that happened all over the agro sector. the Kibbutzim are spending ****loads of money to keep people in, and this is not feasible in the agricultural sector.

OTOH, The Kibbutzim that have taken up manufacturing and tourism are doing much better. Also, many people that are tired from living in the city's noise and commotion are trying to Join a kibbutz.

[ThePlagueRat]

For me, this is basic free healthcare, education, and standard rights to keep people out of abysmal poverty.

Reasonable enough. The more people who falls into poverty, the more crime, corruption, and killings there will be. So it's important that governments no not screw welfare systems up.

[Zylka]

IF YOU DO A GOOGLE SEARCH ON HITLER & BUSH... AND THEN TURN UR MONITOR UPSIDE DOWN, YOU WILL SEE A NAKED PICTURE OF THE DEVIL DANCING ON TOP OF AN OLD TEXAN OIL WELL

(TRUE STORY)

[Agathon]

A few comments:

1) The "human nature" argument to the effect that people will always be greedy is probably false. Human beings and their psychology are wholly physicalistic and therefore can be manipulated by physical means. We already do this to a significant degree with drugs and the like. In short human nature is malleable. People that think it isn't are usually basing their objection on some vague religious belief in a soul or in the "inviolable nature of the mind) - that stuff is just false.

2) An economy where everyone co-operates rationally for the common good will always do better than one in which groups of people compete. The only reason for using markets is that incentives provide efficiency gains given that people are monumentally selfish creatures. If this was removed from the equation (see 1) co-operation would be more efficent.

3) It isn't as if communism failed. Just look at the Keynesian policies that are still followed in many countries and the existence of some form of welfare state in most developed countries. There is a large degree of central planning and egalitarianism in these doctrines and they worked spectacularly well up to a point.

4) The notion that capitalist countries are better off than non-capitalist countries is a bit inaccurate. If you want to call capitalism what it really is, markets sustained by the use of force, then it isn't that remarkable. Include in the market all those people who make the things that we use for 2 cents a day and all the other poor souls who suffer so that we in wealthy countries can drive cars and drink coffee and you have a better idea of what is going on. We can't simply say that life in the US is better because of the political system it has - it is also better because the US uses force to ensure that the resources of other countries are used to benefit the citizens of the US and not the citizens of those countries (same goes for most of the rest of us rich people). Lesson - if you remember the sweatshops it's clear that capitalism has just moved the unpleasant Victorian working conditions offshore and out of site (preferably to a country where they shoot people if they ask for a raise).