prove the benefits of social democracy

[Vee]

In the vein of Prove the benefits of libertarianism, prove the benefits of social democracy.

I've placed this in the political forum rather than the philosophy forum because democracy refers to votes and that refers to a political process to my mind.

It is unclear to me how socialism is related to social democracy, if it is in fact related, so perhaps that is the first thing we'll need to clear up.

If it is, the first thing opponents will say is socialism leads to fascism and onto Hitler, Mussolini and Big Brother, etc. That is why on the libertarian thread I see it leading to feudalism. This thread is about the converse.

So go ahead and prove the benefits of social democracy.

[Rainbow]

Here, it is the proof for social democracy's benefits :
- mind and paper :-)
The rest remains quite similar, regardless of onomastics.

[Vee]

Well that makes a lot of sense

[samsara15]

I don't think anyone can prove the validity of any political theory. It's all mirrors and smoke, and all the theories have serious flaws, which result in a flawed world. Which is why most nations have mixed systems.

[rmnunez]

Oh, come on, there must be more than two advocates for social democracy hereabouts, its a common trait among critical lefties. Think of all those wonderful things social-democrats have brought us; creationism, multiculturalism, feminism, workers rights, accomodation for the differently-abled....

[leftcider]

Quote by: rmnunez creationism

Definately not created by social democrats

[GodBlessAmerica]

Libertarians seem socially very liberal in the vice area and on the government side they seem to be anarchists.

They probably are a great source for the latest information about what the best recreational drugs are and where to get them. (In the name of the Constitution of course) :-)

[grandpa]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Libertarians seem socially very liberal in the vice area and on the government side they seem to be anarchists. They probably are a great source for the latest information about what the best recreational drugs are and where to get them. (In the name of the Constitution of course) :-)

The term "Libertarian" originally meant anarchist. But right-Libertarians are NOT anarchists, in my view. Only left-Libertarians qualify. And people should not do things based on what a Constitution says about it, but based on whether the things should be done.

Grandpa h.

[Vee]

Not much activity here but I did find it amazing how many wanted to take the philosophy of libertarianism and take it to the political theory of liberal democracy. (Whether I or others were the cause remains unknown and the fact that I'm not interested in investigating that incidental)

On this occasion I am exploring an actual political theory.

[rmnunez]

Leicester University made the first global map of “happiness” which shows Danes and Swiss are the happiest while Zimbabweans and Burundis are the least happy. Spaniards are in 46th place in the map created by social psychologist Adrian White, who premised his map on national life expectancy, economic well-being and access to education. White used data published by the UNESCO, WHO and others. The map shows data for 177 countries based on over 100 published studies backed by surveys of over 80.000 personas around the world. After Denmark and Switzerland, people from Austria, Iceland, the Bahamas, Finland and Sweden are the happiest. Costa Rica comes in at 13, Holland at 15, Malaysia is 17th and Norway is 19th. Britain is 41st and the US 23rd. Among the Latin Americans Mexico scored 51 while Argentina came it at 56, Cuba was 83rd and Venezuela was 25th. "There is a belief capitalism makes people unhappy, however when people were asked if they were happy, there was a greater likelihood people from countries with good health-care, high per capita income and good access to education would answer in the affirmative” the social psychologist said.

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundosalud/2...154137589.html
Finally, irrefutable scientific evidence capitalism is good for you.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: samsara15 I don't think anyone can prove the validity of any political theory. It's all mirrors and smoke, and all the theories have serious flaws, which result in a flawed world.

That is the whole case all about.
Any ideology along with any supportive philosophy presents a lot on a paper, mostly, while onomastics becomes irrelevant when compared to reality.

[Vee]

Its been a while but in hindsight I probably should've made this about social liberalism

[brien]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica Libertarians seem socially very liberal in the vice area and on the government side they seem to be anarchists. They probably are a great source for the latest information about what the best recreational drugs are and where to get them. (In the name of the Constitution of course) :-)

GBA wrote:

on the government side they seem to be anarchists.

FYI

Not quite. Libertarians seek to privatise most of the bureaucratic government agencies and programs. Very much different than anarchists.

From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Anarchy: Absence of any political authority. Political disorder and confusion. Absence of any cohering principle, as a common standard or purpose.

[lsbskins1]

Well, this is the first time I saw the thread, but I'm always willing to put in my two cents worth.

Sometimes these things are hard to respond to when you do not want to be trapped in someone elses definition of your ideology. That being the case, as a lefty/liberal I would like to make it clear I think of myself as a progressive humanist with an existential bent. I would also like to make it clear that I believe dogmatism is the bane of all existence. Therefore, I would like to say that anyone who has their head screwed on properly (in my world) understands that you take your truth and your workable solutions where you find it/them. A little democracy, a little capitalism, a little government regulation, a little socialism, a little frontier spirit, some Constitutionally protected rights and the willingness to try new answers without prejudice and the world would be a very cool place. I hate conservative dogmatism because it leads to stagnation but also realize a little conservatism can keep you grounded and stop people from fixin' what aint broke. I hate Anarchistic/Libertarian dogmatism because it leads to too little respect for the suffering of an individual in pursuit of the freedom of the individual (being free to starve is freedom but not positive freedom) but respect the need for the ideals of Libertarians because it is too easy to lose sight of individuals in pursuit of other goals. I could go down lists of political/philosophical systems and give you relevant dichotomies, but you get the gist. Holding to the progressive label is what is most important to me, because it is what means, to me, openness to new answers and ideas. But non-dogmatic matters alot.

How can you argue against a system that wants to find solutions and will take what is reasonable and works, no matter it's label?

[Autolykos]

I'm not going to respond to your endless platitudes, but I will respond to this:

Quote by: lsbskins1 How can you argue against a system that wants to find solutions and will take what is reasonable and works, no matter it's label?

Easily. Different people have different ideas of what is a "solution", what is "reasonable", and what "works". Understand?

Something to add:

Isn't "doing whatever works" a dogma in and of itself?

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Rob-

I have been accused of making things personal many times. You did not really address any point I made, but rather, with a mocking tone, implied they were all unworthy of comment. If you and others want respect, you need to start out (at least start ) respectfully. I want a dialogue, I really do. If you want the same, then you must play by the same rules you ask others to play by.

Now, to what you asked if I understood. I do understand that different people have different ideas about what will work. But if we have any hope of achieving anything, it is necessary to agree and admit that it is possible to difine what does work. If you want to freeze meat so that your family can eat in times when the hunting is bad and you and your father (or brother or cousin or wife) come up with different plans for achieving that goal, there are objective ways to determine what does answer the need most effectively. One might say "Lets dig into the side of a hill, cut blocks of ice from the river and create a natural meat-locker" and the other might say "No, let's build a room in our house, cut blocks of ice from the river and store it where we live". In the end, either the family preserves more meat in one(less natural loss in the side of the hill because insulation is better) or the other(less loss through theft) and it is, objectively, a better solution. My point ,and I reach it with a clear level of understanding, is that being open to what works is more important than the subjective desire to remain dogmatically pure. That, for me, defines progressive thinking. The aim is progress and solutions, not remaining "true to an ideal".

[Autolykos]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Rob- I have been accused of making things personal many times. You did not really address any point I made, but rather, with a mocking tone, implied they were all unworthy of comment.

Exactly. Glad we have that settled.

If you and others want respect, you need to start out (at least start ) respectfully. I want a dialogue, I really do. If you want the same, then you must play by the same rules you ask others to play by.

What if I don't want, or care about, respect?

Now, to what you asked if I understood. I do understand that different people have different ideas about what will work. But if we have any hope of achieving anything, it is necessary to agree and admit that it is possible to difine what does work.

Different people have different goals. What "works" for them is what will accomplish their goals. If two people have mutually exclusive goals, then what each considers to be "workable" will also be mutually exclusive, and there is no hope of dialogue or reconciliation. Correct?

If you want to freeze meat so that your family can eat in times when the hunting is bad and you and your father (or brother or cousin or wife) come up with different plans for achieving that goal, there are objective ways to determine what does answer the need most effectively. One might say "Lets dig into the side of a hill, cut blocks of ice from the river and create a natural meat-locker" and the other might say "No, let's build a room in our house, cut blocks of ice from the river and store it where we live". In the end, either the family preserves more meat in one(less natural loss in the side of the hill because insulation is better) or the other(less loss through theft) and it is, objectively, a better solution.

We must have very different ideas of what is "objective" or something, because I don't see an objective solution there. In fact, I don't see a solution at all -- I see sets of trade-offs. And the set of trade-offs that one prefers is subjective on his part. Sic semper politibus.

My point ,and I reach it with a clear level of understanding, is that being open to what works is more important than the subjective desire to remain dogmatically pure. That, for me, defines progressive thinking. The aim is progress and solutions, not remaining "true to an ideal".

Are your own ideas of what are "progress" and "solutions" necessarily the only ones? I don't think so.

Now then, allow me to ask you to prove how political considerations are, or can ever be, objective.

- Rob

[Captain Chaos]

I think maybe I do not understand what is meant here by social democracy.

In the prove the benefits of libertarianism thread, a number of points were made, including references to economic statistitcs, showing that economic freedom leads to economic growth.

But, libertarianism is a fairly clear concept, in some ways. Are there any examples of countries that practice social democracy that we could use as a reference?

[Cephus]

Quote by: grandpa The term "Libertarian" originally meant anarchist. But right-Libertarians are NOT anarchists, in my view. Only left-Libertarians qualify. And people should not do things based on what a Constitution says about it, but based on whether the things should be done.

But of course, "should be done" is purely subjective. Even among Libertarians, you don't get a lot of agreement on what "should be done" or should not be done, most of them come off as anarchists because they want no functional controls, by anyone, of anything. And unfortunately, most of them can't even quantify *WHY* they want these things or why any of them are good for society as a whole.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Cephus But of course, "should be done" is purely subjective. Even among Libertarians, you don't get a lot of agreement on what "should be done" or should not be done, most of them come off as anarchists because they want no functional controls, by anyone, of anything.

Ultimately, agreement comes down to the individual human level.
Even a truly democratic government could be wrong.
That's why party and national politics end up become a farce.
Groupthink occurs and people end up supporting things they otherwise wouldn't.
Anarchists regularly point this out.

Grandpa h.