12-09-2008, 02:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2008, 02:34 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I've always been a social democrat, but the recent events (not just terrorism but also political developments) made me rethink my beliefs. It's clear that Hinduism and Hindus are under threat, but I am still not convinced that social democracy isn't the right way. And when I say social democracy, I am referring to the systems prevalent in Scandinavian countries, NOT to the nonsense being done in the name of socialism by our Indian communists/Nehruvian socialists. mad.gif So please, let's be clear on that.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do not want to get into economics too much on this thread but suffice it to say that what happens in the Scandinavian countries is called a nanny state, and I would even go so far as to say legalized theft by the gov't is what it is. They work from the assumption that people who are rich are somehow to blame for the status of the underclass, and thus the gov't shall take some of their money and under their esteemed oversight give it to the people in need. The problem with that is, first off there is a general principle we can note on our own from everyday observation, people generally don't spend other peoples money as carefully as they spend their own money. When the gov't takes money off the rich and spends it on the poor, their intentions maybe good but the reality is that it's not their money and they won't have the same carefulness when they spend it. The second problem with that assumption is who gives the gov't the right to play robin hood which if an individual did would land him in jail. Of course there are other side effects typical of such ideologies, the people in power think they know whats best for us, if for exmaple someone doesn't want gay marriage then shut up your say doesn't matter because that is a fundamental right they say, but if the same guy wants to fight all out bare knuckle with another adult after they both signed an agreement saying they know the risks, well then out comes the gov't saying that it's too violent and dangerous, and they know whats the best way for you to fight.
The solution to poverty does not lie in gov't thieving from the well off and giving it to people who they decide need it but in what private individuals themselves do, people who go out with novel ideas and create new jobs, or establish private schools with minimal fees so that kids in poverty can have education do far more to uplift people from poverty than gov't sponsored welfare schemes do, not the gov't which doles out welfare perpetually so that the people who they are supposed to help end up with no incentive at all to ever get off welfare (why should they, when the gov't is paying for everything?)
I will deal with your other points later on.
I do not want to get into economics too much on this thread but suffice it to say that what happens in the Scandinavian countries is called a nanny state, and I would even go so far as to say legalized theft by the gov't is what it is. They work from the assumption that people who are rich are somehow to blame for the status of the underclass, and thus the gov't shall take some of their money and under their esteemed oversight give it to the people in need. The problem with that is, first off there is a general principle we can note on our own from everyday observation, people generally don't spend other peoples money as carefully as they spend their own money. When the gov't takes money off the rich and spends it on the poor, their intentions maybe good but the reality is that it's not their money and they won't have the same carefulness when they spend it. The second problem with that assumption is who gives the gov't the right to play robin hood which if an individual did would land him in jail. Of course there are other side effects typical of such ideologies, the people in power think they know whats best for us, if for exmaple someone doesn't want gay marriage then shut up your say doesn't matter because that is a fundamental right they say, but if the same guy wants to fight all out bare knuckle with another adult after they both signed an agreement saying they know the risks, well then out comes the gov't saying that it's too violent and dangerous, and they know whats the best way for you to fight.
The solution to poverty does not lie in gov't thieving from the well off and giving it to people who they decide need it but in what private individuals themselves do, people who go out with novel ideas and create new jobs, or establish private schools with minimal fees so that kids in poverty can have education do far more to uplift people from poverty than gov't sponsored welfare schemes do, not the gov't which doles out welfare perpetually so that the people who they are supposed to help end up with no incentive at all to ever get off welfare (why should they, when the gov't is paying for everything?)
I will deal with your other points later on.