CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:103
Arguments:85
Total Votes:130
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (70)

Debate Creator

socratic4(102) pic



Why Social Democracy Doesn't Work

Social democracy is a political approach in which the general citizenry receives extensive welfare programs and social benefits, people that support this political approach do so on the basis of alleviating the poor of their burdens, however this approach and argument are problematic for a couple of reasons. 

There is on such thing as absolute poverty, the reason you consider certain people poor and deserving of social benefits is their position on the socioeconomic scale, which is in polar opposition to the wealthiest of people. 500 years ago the people you consider poor now would be considered wealthy as they wouldn't be positioned at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale. This matters because it doesn't matter how many social benefits you bestow upon the poor they will still be at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale which leads to them deserving more and more social benefits, this causes a couple of problems as the extensive taxation the government has to partake in in order to cover the costs of such extensive welfare programs stagnates the economy as money that the government confiscates isn't money that is circulating in the economy, stimulating the industry and production, and passing from hand to hand. Which leads to everyone being generally poorer. Additionally The government doesn't even make enough tax revenue to cover such extensive welfare programs, it relies on loans and printing money in order to do so, which will Inevitably lead to a recession and inflation.
Add New Argument
2 points

Why is the Hammer and Sickle the symbol for a thread on "Social Democracy"? That is a horrible conflation and distortion of what a Social Democracy is

1 point

The arguments here show a level of ignorance of the reality of modern western economic systems that it's hard to know where to start.

Social democracy blended with moderated capitalism is the only system shown to work in modern western society, and all modern western nations use that blend. It fails hard when it becomes socialist for the powerful corporations, and capitalist for the people - that's precisely the opposite of what really works, and it's what we're seeing right now.

socratic4(102) Disputed
2 points

The argument you present here shows a level of ignorance of the reality of modern western economic systems that it's hard to know where to start.

Capitalism with very few regulation and laws that prevent cronyism is what works best. It fails hard when people give the government power over the market which Inevitably leads to corporations using the government as a pawn to tighten their grip over the market. - that's precisely the opposite of what really works, and it's what we're seeing right now.

See? I can do this too, so do you want to continue spewing your beliefs without backing them in any way shape or from? because it amounts to nothing.

EldonG(469) Clarified
1 point

In some ways, you've expounded on my argument, explaining the regulations that are, beyond doubt, needed - but then you side-stepped the whole debate - it's about socialism, not capitalism.

My 'ideas' are indeed backed, and if you want a reference, I recommend reality. As stated, each and every modern western society is, in fact, a blended system of socialism and capitalism.

Many are weak on what socialism actually is. Maybe you need explanation: The roads are socialist (except toll roads). The military is socialist. The police and fire departments are socialist. Public schools are socialist, and yes, programs that make sure that the elderly and disabled can survive, are also socialist. Oh, and the subsidies for huge corporations? They're socialist, too.

Socialism exists any time public monies are spent in a way that (the perception is) help society.

0 points

Capitalism with very few regulation and laws that prevent cronyism is what works best.

Are you literally retarded? That is precisely what caused the 2008 economic meltdown. You are describing rational market theory, which has been the academic basis for western capitalism since the 1960s. In 2008, the guy who invented it, who also happens to be the ex-chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, stood in front of a House Committee and flatly told them all he was wrong.

"In other words you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right. It was not working?"

"Precisely. That's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I had been going for forty years or more with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well."

(Alan Greenspan to House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, 2008)

1 point

"Welfare programs and Social Benefits" ... WRONG! In that system the PEOPLE PAY INTO the kitty and the kitty takes care of things that are needed BY THE PEOPLE! Exactly what democracy is supposed to do. Like an insurance policy, the money is there for those WHO NEED IT, the protection is there for those who might! Communists know this, that's why they almost always refer to themselves as "The peoples army, the peoples republic, the peoples universities" Sort of like Goebbels saying if you tell a lie often enough and loud enough it becomes the truth!

In a Social DEMOCRACY that is TRUE! Without the democracy part of it (the free vote), it becomes communistic almost immediately. Some leader comes along and starts "writing decrees" .... "for the peoples own good" ... and begins to demand the adoration of "the people". So NOW, lets look at OUR situation. The right wants voting restrictions, the right wants to tax "the people". The right wants U.S. to adore their leader. The right loves it when he "decrees" (with a YUGE signature). The right wants complete control of government (one party control) LIBERALS BEGONE! The right want those who can afford it to have what they want, if you can't, don't look at ME! DIE! THIS, they will eventually call "the peoples government"! What THEY want is COMMUNISM, (and they can't even SEE it!) what they DON'T want is social "democracy" that is TRULY ... the peoples!

Be careful of: Steve Bannon, Steven Miller, Donald Trump and his "respect" for every rotten dictator he has met that will flatter (not stand against) him! America HAS BEEN a social democracy since its inception, we just haven't called it that. Americans working for AMERICANS as a whole to keep our country whole, not just let those suffer that can't physically or mentally care for themselves! That's WHY we were great, once, and won't be "great again" if we ignore those "other" Americans! There ARE a few that are just plain lazy and have to be dealt with. I think that number is LESS than the number that greedily holds over 80% of the country's money (much of it in offshore accounts) and do all they can to keep THEIR share of tax money from getting to those Americans who could use it to "MAGA"!

GIMME A TAX BREAK! (I need it to feed my offshore accounts!) My last yacht depleted it, somewhat. MAGA??? What Trump wants is what "doesn't work"!

socratic4(102) Disputed
2 points

Excluding the fact that you choose whether or not to invest in an insurance while in communism someone forcefully takes your stuff and puts it in the kitty, What determines whether you need something or not?

EldonG(469) Disputed
1 point

You just failed communism 101. In a true communist society, all property is owned by all. "Your stuff" is a capitalistic/socialistic view that simply doesn't exist in communism.

This is why societies usually claimed communist are in fact not, and why only small communist societies ever exist for any length of time.

AlofRI(1831) Clarified
1 point

If you have a serious accident, an illness, a crippling disease, if you are not rich, you need something. Most people understand that. If you are a part of a "great country" you do not "choose to invest" in what your country needs, you just DO it! It's called REAL "patriotism" whether the "investment" is your life, your time OR, your money! That's what makes a democracy great, not empty promises!

Yes, with today's communism somebody takes whatever they want. I hate communism, would NEVER recommend it. Communism has NOTHING to do with Social Democracy, Social Democracy cannot have an authoritarian leader, it MUST have (actual) free elections to be democratic.

1 point

Any benefit provided to the people in any nation would be guilty of this, meaning it wouldn't just be true in social democracy but in monarchy, communism, totalitarianism, etc., unless they simply provided zero benefit of any kind to their people. And in the zero benefit scenario they essentially stop being a government and instead become a criminal organization.

Logically, you're saying the only thing that works is a criminal organization. Take take take what you want from people, give them nothing back. Because anything you give back degrades your resources and overall capabilities.

I'd rather just live in a social democracy.

500 years ago the people you consider poor now would be considered wealthy

Your ignorance is beginning to offend me. It does not work that way. Firstly, rich and poor are relative -- not absolute -- terms. If a rich man wakes up tomorrow morning and everybody in the world suddenly has exactly the same amount of money as him, then he is no longer rich. Secondly, you are committing the utterly infuriating fallacy of conflating economic progress with technological evolution. As time passes, older technology becomes more cost efficient and cheaper, and hence more people gain access to it. This is not about wealth. It's about evolutionary progress.

Your threads are stupid, badly articulated, and littered with fallacies.

socratic4(102) Disputed
4 points

quote a paragraph from my text and explain why it's wrong because as far as I understand your argument is a bunch of sophist BS

Antrim(997) Disputed
2 points

If all the prosperous men, (not just one, but all the world's well-heeled) awoke to find that the world's wealth had been shared equally among everyone it would not be long before most of the original affluent would have their dosh back and life's losers would be queueing for their benefit cheques and other handouts.

It is wholly wrong, and indeed dangerous to go against nature's law of natural selection/survival of the fittest and artificially keep the sub-classes alive.

The lower orders were meant to perish so that those of higher intelligence who have adapted more successfully to the environment in which they live can become dominant and enhance the survival prospects of our species.

Kalamazoo(478) Clarified
3 points

Bloody well said there old boy.

The loonie left have an irrational aversion to reality.

FactMachine(359) Disputed
2 points

Before I get into this I just want to make it clear that I'm not a lefty fucktard or any other denomination of group think indoctrination so don't even try to turn this into a polarized and narrow minded left vs. right debate, I am not advocating for social democracy at all.

Your statement would be perfectly valid if it where not for the fact that you think being successful in capitalism is the same as "natural selection" because that is not the case at all.

You are blatantly a social elitist, you are conflating wealth with intelligence and social status with "adapting successfully" clearly forgetting the fact that many "successful" people where given everything they have without doing anything to earn it, just got lucky, or weaseled their way to the top and have literally nothing to offer the world but parasitism, as they don't actually produce anything of value and are only taking advantage of capitalism to accumulate wealth.

If you think natural selection and monetary system selection are the same then do you think Justin Bieber is superior to you? He's a lot more "successful" after all. He is only wealthy because stupid teenage girls with brains the size of bieber's micropenis exist on this planet, there is one example of how capitalist selection is in many cases the exact OPPOSITE of natural selection.

The fact of the matter is Nicola Tesla died poor and homeless and he was many orders of magnitude more intelligent than you'll ever be, Albert Einstein was never as wealthy as George Soros or Henry Kissinger, do you think they are more intelligent than him? Or do you think they are disgusting little leech parasites who weaseled and bought their way to the top?

Your elitist worldview is inconsistent with reality, look at the inbred british royal family and other examples of "old money" do you honestly think their wealth makes them superior? Do you think that's natural selection or the exact opposite?

Human society creates the OPPOSITE of natural selection, it allows inbred scum to inherit wealth and power, it allows useless toilet bowl creatures like the people on wall street to accumulate vast quantities of resources just for playing with imaginary fractional reserve money on a computer screen. It allows horrible shitty people to become rich and famous celebrities SPECIFICALLY because the average person is an IDIOT who likes shitty simple minded music and other garbage media.

The wealthiest people are not superior, they are very often total trash, if you honestly think otherwise then imagine these people trying to survive in the wilderness with nothing but their own intelligence and physical fitness, your notions of "natural selection" would be altered swiftly. The wealthiest and most influential people have never been the most intelligent or fit, it's people like Max Planck and Charles Proteus Steinmetz who are truly intelligent, and they where no where near as rich as inferiors like the rockefellers and rothschilds. If you want to conflate natural selection with human society's selection then show me one example of a filthy rich person who is actually physically fit compared to a cave man or mentally fit compared to Tesla? You can't do it because you are WRONG.

Amarel(2350) Disputed
2 points

Firstly, rich and poor are relative

That's actually what he is saying.

Secondly, you are committing the utterly infuriating fallacy of conflating economic progress with technological evolution

What you are calling technological evolution IS economic progress. The technology of 500 years ago was barely better than the technology of 1000 years ago. The advent of economic institutions that enable capitalism has brought about technological innovations the likes of which humanity has never before known. Calling it "technological evololution", as if its simply a natural progression, ignores the entrepreneurship behind most of our technology.

1 point

Firstly, rich and poor are relative -- not absolute -- terms

Good god you're right dumbass. Since there are billionaires, millionaires are poor. Why the fuck didn't I think of that? Because I'm not a complete dipshit...

0 points

Hello s:

I'm like Trump.. I don't have the attention span to read your entire treatise.. But, I believe in the good ole US of A.. I dunno what you wanna call us, but we're capitalists with a safety net. That means we don't let people starve or die in the streets.

Right wingerism doesn't work because they WILL let people starve and die in the streets.. For example, as we speak they're trying to take health care AWAY from about 10 million people.. Without health care, people die.

excon

socratic4(102) Disputed
2 points

The taxation that is required in order to fund your failing safety net is stagnating the economy to the extent that people would be better off (living standards wise) without it. Not to mention that Your government doesn't even make enough tax revenue to pay for it, it relies on loans that it obviously can't pay, which will eventually lead to a recession. Oh, and Prove that people would've died without your safety net.

2 points

The taxation that is required in order to fund your failing safety net is stagnating the economy

With respect, the problem with your threads is that you don't understand the thing you are trying to attack. You've obviously been indoctrinated into some form of capitalist propaganda, and as a result you are criticising a bunch of straw man arguments.

AlofRI(1831) Clarified
1 point

The reason our "government doesn't have enough money to pay for it" is because those that have over 80% of the taxable money don't want to pay the taxes and the idiot conservatives want to take the "assumed privelidge" and make SURE that they don't! The!y have been making RECORD profits since Reagan and they haven't invested in America, they've invested in cheap foreign labor! Trump thinks if we give them MORE profit, they'll change! Doing the same thing over and over, with the same result ... is called WHAT??

1 point

I'm like Trump

We know this. If only he had the donkey patch. I can imagine the pretty things you probably said and thought about him before he beat the wicked witch of the West for the Presidency...