The "welfare state"?

I'm currently reading a book called the United States of Europe and a considerable part of it is devoted to the European ideals of a welfare state compared to the United States or anywhere else and the author of the book argues about how the idea of a welfare state is viewed as something to be proud of in many european nations and something worth sacrificing for,While here in the US it is viewed in a negative light as something socialist and as something that discourages people from finding jobs and putting effort into things.

Edited by Kevin - 15-Jul-2007 at 01:13

Originally posted by gcle2003   Originally posted by Kevin I'm currently reading a book called the United States of Europe and a considerable part of it is devoted to the European ideals of a wlfare state compared to the United States or anywhere else   It's more a question of the European and anywhere else ideals of a welfare state, as against the United States alone.   From a historical point of view it always puzzles me that the US was so quick to establish free public schools (even even free public libraries) but resisted other welfare services. I mean, I know where the arguments against public health systems are coming from now, but why didn't the US start adopting welfare services in the first place?

"Evergetism?"

Originally posted by Kevin So I was wondering if anyboy would want to contribute to the positives and negatives of a welfare state and how such a social and economic system is viewed in your nation or culture?

In the case of Australia the welfare state was an evolution of the ideals which grew out of its convict past. Many of the early settlers were those who had simply been unlucky to have been born at the bottom end of the social spectrum and had turned to a life of petty crime, or suffered poverty in Ireland and were transported to find a new life. The early settlers developed the idea of "a fair go", where everyone deserves a reasonable level of opportunity for society to have any expectation of them to succeed in life. In creating a new nation out of wilderness, many of the settlers also had to band together and help eachother out in fighting against nature's calamities. The idea of "mateship" developed, which is a peculiar feature of Australian identity where you come to the aid of your neighbour or you help out those who suffer from difficulties which they could not possibly have forseen and prepared for. Finally, Australian society evolved in a distinctly classless way because the old feudal traditions of Europe had no application on the other side of the planet in a new land. Australians have clung to this anti-elitist tendency ever since, becoming dismissive of those who hoist themselves up on to a pedestal or try to be anything which goes against the egalitarian values of Australian society.

You can see where all this has lead to. Australian society developed a welfare state comparable to the most advanced ones back in Europe. Personally I see this not only as a commendable humanitarian achievement, but also a sound investment. Millions of intelligent and potentially talented individual who were born at the unlucky end of society are given opportunity to follow their passion in life and make themselves a useful asset to society, something I dare think many of those tough early settlers would be proud to know has been achieved. Rather than such individuals putting their intelligence and talent to use in criminal activity, they are instead given the means to make constructive use of them.


Edited by Constantine XI - 15-Jul-2007 at 19:08

Welfare states are viewed badly because they are the same thing as communism. Take that mans money from him, give it to the "needy" (That is the common conception of them here). America provides opportunity for your own success that is why there are libraries, schools, and even financial help. But, they draw the line, and make people work for themselves. Of course that doesn't seem to always work. There are a lot bums out there claiming they aren't able to work. America attempts to give even the poorest person a proper education, and a way to be productive, but will not support them completely depending on their situation.


Edited by Ulrich Wolff - 01-Oct-2007 at 20:03

Originally posted by Kevin I'm currently reading a book called the United States of Europe and a considerable part of it is devoted to the European ideals of a welfare state compared to the United States or anywhere else and the author of the book argues about how the idea of a welfare state is viewed as something to be proud of in many european nations and something worth sacrificing for,While here in the US it is viewed in a negative light as something socialist and as something that discourages people from finding jobs and putting effort into things.   So I was wondering if anyboy would want to contribute to the positives and negatives of a welfare state and how such a social and economic system is viewed in your nation or culture?

Not if they're rich they don't. Is anyone making Paris Hilton work for herself?

Edited by Ulrich Wolff - 08-Oct-2007 at 18:15

Originally posted by Kevin I'm currently reading a book called the United States of Europe and a considerable part of it is devoted to the European ideals of a welfare state compared to the United States or anywhere else and the author of the book argues about how the idea of a welfare state is viewed as something to be proud of in many european nations and something worth sacrificing for,While here in the US it is viewed in a negative light as something socialist and as something that discourages people from finding jobs and putting effort into things.   So I was wondering if anyboy would want to contribute to the positives and negatives of a welfare state and how such a social and economic system is viewed in your nation or culture?

[/QUOTE]

I didn't have time to address a few things in my last post, so I will address them now.

Cherokee communism, you're wrong. Utopian communism, wrong again.

Cherokee communism worked because the tribe is just like a family. Each work, each take care of those who do not work with in the family. So, in a sense its just like what you said here.

The normal result of that is that people channel their charity to people they know or who belong to societies they know

Utopian communism does not work in the real world. The fact bears in its very name.

That tends to mean that charity flows, for instance, within the Baptist or Catholic or whatever community and congregation and stays with members of that in-group.

I can't count how many charity groups there are. I can't count how many I've participated in over the years. When I went to school we had at least 1 or 2 charity programs a year. When I went to boy scouts every time you turn around we're doing charity work.

Red Cross
City of Hope and affiliates
CARE
Save the Children

Those are all non-religious charity programs.

Yes they do. Think of all the people who work for Paris Hilton and her family. Think of all the people who worked for Ken Laye. Their goal may be their own and their family's well-being, but they are rarely the only people who benefit from their labour.

I think the answer to this question is the most obvious. They had an employer (AKA Hilton family) who paid them a certain amount of money to work for them, thus advancing, and providing for their families. One could even argue that having people like the Hilton family is very beneficial because they provide work for a variety of people.



Edited by Ulrich Wolff - 10-Oct-2007 at 20:11