This time, ami has a point....

[amicus]

Factual information is a curious critter when viewed objectively; as has often said, on can find 'facts' to support every side of every argument and everone is right. Such a deal.

With the 'bean counter' accountants, cost/befit ratio mentality, the two Canadian apologists above seem incapable of including a moral or ethical factor in their equations. Think about that.

Johnathan Swifts, 'A Modest Proposal', is factual to the nth degree, in all ways and manners. Solving the over population of long ago England, by boiling tender babies for human consumption, is eminently practical and solves a host of problems.

Factual, pragmatic and practical though it may be, boiling tender babies for food is more than somewhat morally repugnant, as is butchering babies in the womb as a form of birth control.

The reason the moral factor is absent in all of Stephen55 & Pures expositions is simply because they have nor moral or ethical foundations. They function only on the level of the greatest good for the greatest number, without considering the human factor (interesting take on fact, factor...) in t erms of free will and choice.

Mubarak in Egypt was 'factually' important to the US and Israel, if not the entire world as his regime controlled the violence in the Arab world, as it concerns the Jews, the Suez Canal and the oil producing OPEC nations of the middle east. But the cost was the untold human suffering of the Egyptian population.

There is something strangely cyclical in the reign of dictators without ethics or morals, be it the generation long plight of Egypt and Libya, or the two generations it took for the Soviet Union to rot from inside out.

Human actions have consequences far beyond their immeditate impact on societym which those of us who have lived long enough and have kept current on events and history, have learned to quantify.

My two antagonists function from an ideology that is fatally flawed because it views human kind as rats in a cage; to be managed and manipulated to serve an end without regards to the means.

The United States, the greatest nation in the history of the world, will win out if we don't weaken and fall prey to the Collectivists of all colors.

Amicus

 

[Xelebes]

For every reaction, there is a guess as to what the action was.

 

[stephen55]

My two antagonists function from an ideology that is fatally flawed because it views human kind as rats in a cage; to be managed and manipulated to serve an end without regards to the means.
Amicus

The only one around here who views humanity as rats in a cage is our resident Randroid.

And ami, if keep spouting that crap about me being incapable of including a moral or ethical factor in their equations, you will be renamed Lit's resident Randroid fucktard.

 

[Pure]

reminds me of the old legal saying : "if weak in the facts, argue the law, etc."

it's a fair question, though, if i'm utilitarian, and if my arguments about quality of life, rights liberties, etc. are essentially utilitarian. or to put it bluntly, if i'm a 'collectivist' who sacrifices individuals for the greater good. no, i'm not utilitarian, though the 'general welfare' is one goal of government (see US constitution).

first, the countries with healthy social democracies are quite free as regards speech and other civil liberties; Canada, Holland, Sweden and France are places where human rights are respected as per various declaration by the European nations.

second, let's look at a fact:

In 2002 [in US], 357 maternal deaths resulted from complications during pregnancy, childbirth, or up to 42 days postpartum

http://mchb.hrsa.gov/mchirc/chusa_04/pages/0409mm.htm

those 357 were individuals, and if the US had Europe's rate, here, half of those women would be alive. that's 175 individuals. sacrificed to the 'capitalist ideal' of health insurance only for those who can afford it .

as far as the young go, despite the posturing about "unborn babies",
amicus ignores this fact:

28000 infants under the age of 1 die each year in the United States

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/health/16infant.html

again half of those are preventable. in short, the system advocated by amicus lets the weak, not just the lazy, fall by the wayside, quite happily. the 'free market' trumps individual rights to life. for the health-related corporations' welfare--considered the greater good-- the US sacrifices 1 mom and 40 babies every two days.

=====================

amiJohnathan Swifts, 'A Modest Proposal', is factual to the nth degree, in all ways and manners. Solving the over population of long ago England, by boiling tender babies for human consumption, is eminently practical and solves a host of problems.

Factual, pragmatic and practical though it may be, boiling tender babies for food is more than somewhat morally repugnant, as is butchering babies in the womb as a form of birth control.

The reason the moral factor is absent in all of Stephen55 & Pures expositions is simply because they have nor moral or ethical foundations. They function only on the level of the greatest good for the greatest number, without considering the human factor (interesting take on fact, factor...) in t erms of free will and choice.

 

[Pure]

Sacrifices for the greater good. Premature babies. [US]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/26/opinion/26blow.html?src=me&ref=general

The G.O.P.’s Abandoned Babies

By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: February 25, 2011

[...]
…last year the National Center for Health Statistics reported that the rate of premature births fell in 2008, representing the first two-year decline in the last 30 years. The bad news is that, according to the March of Dimes, the Republican budget passed in the House this month could do great damage to this progress. […]

• $50 million in cuts to the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant that “supports state-based prenatal care programs and services for children with special needs.”

• $1 billion in cuts to programs at the National Institutes of Health that support “lifesaving biomedical research aimed at finding the causes and developing strategies for preventing preterm birth.”
[...]

And it doesn’t even make economic sense. A 2006 study by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies estimated that premature births cost the country at least $26 billion a year. At that rate, reducing the number of premature births by just 10 percent would save thousands of babies and $2.6 billion [pure's bold] […].

 

[Stella_Omega]

28000 infants under the age of 1 die each year in the United States

Twenty. Eight. Thousand.

NOT fetuses, not abortions. These are children, alive and breathing. And then dead.

 

[Setanta84]

28000 infants under the age of 1 die each year in the United States

Twenty. Eight. Thousand.

NOT fetuses, not abortions. These are children, alive and breathing. And then dead.

Remember, the expansion of health insurance for children--like the expansion of the SCHIP program under the ACA--could dramatically reduce infant mortality rates by providing coverage for actual adequate health care for newborns. And the GOP is against that, of course.

With the Planned Parenthood debacle, their internally inconsistent stance on the sanctity of life, the weird distinctions they tried to draw concerning sexual assault and how it impacts coverage of care, and the fact that the only aspect of the Catholic "Culture of Life" they embrace is the objection to abortion--not the death penalty or participation in war--people seriously need to wake up to a simple fact: the pro-life movement has very little to do with protecting the lives of the "unborn" and everything to do with impacting the reproductive liberty and thus the political, social, and economic engagement of women.

IVF, for example, creates many, many more fetuses than can ever reasonably be used. If you saw the unnecessary end of a fetus' develop as a bad thing, you'd think that defunding IVF coverage would be at the top of the list of things they'd want to do. But IVF helps keep women barefoot and pregnant, so that's not happening.

However, they do prevent scientists from doing anything actually useful with the discarded fetuses to keep up appearances. You'd think these people would prefer that such a practice would go more towards curing diseases than filling landfills, but c'est la vie.

 

[squarejohn]

Rand irritates a lot pf people and is revered by others. I can agree she is heavy handed, obstinate, and unyielding in her philosophy.

The book and movie the Fountainhead, are didactic in tone. An architect sees his plans --shell we say modified--and dynamites the entire apartment complex, stands trial for it and is acquitted. On the grounds that it was his intellectual property and nobody had the right ti modify what he created. The jury agreed and acquitted him.

I doubt this would happen in real life, he'd be given twenty years. But you have to admire his grit.

Rand's philosophy would not work in real life, because few people have the strength of character to venture on a such a course.

I understand what she's saying and I agree with most of it, but to make it work, you would have to be as hard nosed as the character of the central character

I understand "Objectivism" but few of us have the strength of character to adopt it to our lives.

 

[JackLuis]

Open-Minded Man Grimly Realizes How Much Life He's Wasted Listening To Bullshit

LEVELAND—During an unexpected moment of clarity Tuesday, open-minded man Blake Richman was suddenly struck by the grim realization that he's squandered a significant portion of his life listening to everyone's bullshit, the 38-year-old told reporters.

A visibly stunned and solemn Richman, who until this point regarded his willingness to hear out the opinions of others as a worthwhile quality, estimated that he's wasted nearly three and a half years of his existence being open to people's half-formed thoughts, asinine suggestions, and pointless, dumbfuck stories.

"Jesus Christ," said Richman, taking in the overwhelming volume of useless crap he's actively listened to over the years. "My whole life I've made a concerted effort to give people a fair shake and understand different points of view because I felt that everyone had something valuable to offer, but it turns out most of what they had to offer was complete bullshit."

Stunning revelations in Amicus' words.

 

[amicus]

Stunning ambiguity in your linked piece, JackLuis; what the 40 year old has finally discovered is called, Rational Self Interest, read all about it (pun), in The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand.

Knowing I will elicit charges of Racism and Misogynism, I nonetheless venture forward with some observations that you may, or may not, document with 'facts', as you will.

13% or thereabouts, of the population of the United States is Black. Infant mortality about Blacks is what brings down the overall statistics and is that which is ignored in all the crowing about European social democracies and socialized medicine. The Hispanic population of illegal aliens comprises a sizeable minority which also adds to the infant mortality of the US as the women come to America to drop an illegal baby that will become a citizen.

There are also our fine feminists to consider; those who waited until their fertility window narrows and discover that 40 plus year old mothers contribute to a higher infant mortality rate and produce and greater percentage of 'at risk' children who do not survive the first year of life.

'Hard drugs', have become a way of life for the intellectually elite who, without a moral foundation, (snce the death of God), turn to narcotics to soothe their fears of death and lack of purpose in life. 'Crack babies', just to mention one area; alcoholic mother's, another, prescription anti-anxiety, etcetera, drugs also account for a rise of infant mortality and diminished viability. But then, that is not just an American phenonenon, our maze inhabitants of the social democracies of Europe experience the same effects of living a life without purpose or meaning.

Why government provided and managed health care is touted as such a panacea to the inequalities of life is totally beyond me, especially with such vivid examples of the 20th century to observe.

Perhaps that is all you poor souls have left, a belief in the collective, the managed, controlled, regulated and restricted society to give you some purpose in your miserable lives.

I do not have high hopes for the future as you have infected your children and grandchildren with the morose and morbid outlook on life. I rather suspect a violent catharsis of revolution may be necessary to cleanse the evil of socialism and social democracies from society so that a new generation of those who actually love life and want to live it, can begin again.

I remain...

Amicus Veritas

 

[Pure]

response to ami

response to ami,

there are two kinds of responses to a problem: to try to solve it; or to try to 'explain' it and leave it alone. i will comment on amicus procedure, logically. it's pointless to talk about his racism.

there are about 28,000 infant deaths in the US per year. under a sane, rational, and less expensive healthcare system, the figure would approach that of other advanced nations, like Germany and Holland and be, perhaps 9,000. the excess, 19,000 is the opererating cost of the private healthcare system.

ami is correct that rates for black people are higher. in the US, about 2.5 times higher than for white non hispanic people.

http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=3021

ami divides the babies into two categories. in particular, he separates out the deserving to die babies from others as follows. i'm just rough guessing here (based on proportions of population, varying reported rates, etc), but, in effect, he says,

set aside 7,000 black babies,
7,000 hispanic babies
3,500 poor white babies
and 3,500 babies of overaged women in the grip of feminism.

Voila! 21,000 babies can be set aside. These individuals are simply refuse of the the system.

Only about 7,000 dead babies per year, then, are undeserving, i.e. the white, non-poor babies. And this rate is
in fact SUPERIOR to the overall rate for Germany. US wins. Problem explained and solved.

(He ignores, of course, that the Germans figure could also be adjusted downward by excluding 'deserving' babies also, namely the Muslims and the poor, but let that go.)

The logical point here is that for the good of the private system, 21,000 individuals are written off, sacrificed. IOW, ami concludes that the US is working quite well for prosperous, non feminist, white people, the 'deserving,' the individuals whose good is the 'greater good.' The rest are, you might say, 'collateral damage' in the system. within his frame, he's entirely correct.

===

ami said Knowing I will elicit charges of Racism and Misogynism, I nonetheless venture forward with some observations that you may, or may not, document with 'facts', as you will.

13% or thereabouts, of the population of the United States is Black. Infant mortality about Blacks is what brings down the overall statistics and is that which is ignored in all the crowing about European social democracies and socialized medicine. The Hispanic population of illegal aliens comprises a sizeable minority which also adds to the infant mortality of the US as the women come to America to drop an illegal baby that will become a citizen.

There are also our fine feminists to consider; those who waited until their fertility window narrows and discover that 40 plus year old mothers contribute to a higher infant mortality rate and produce and greater percentage of 'at risk' children who do not survive the first year of life.

'Hard drugs', have become a way of life for the intellectually elite who, without a moral foundation, (snce the death of God), turn to narcotics to soothe their fears of death and lack of purpose in life. 'Crack babies', just to mention one area; alcoholic mother's, another, prescription anti-anxiety, etcetera, drugs also account for a rise of infant mortality and diminished viability. But then, that is not just an American phenonenon, our maze inhabitants of the social democracies of Europe experience the same effects of living a life without purpose or meaning.

 

[stephen55]

Knowing I will elicit charges of Racism and Misogynism, I nonetheless venture forward with some observations that you may, or may not, document with 'facts', as you will.
Amicus Veritas

Ami, you are racist and a misogynist.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ami, you are a small, scared, powerless, low-IQ little man, who disguises his flaws and faults with randism, racism, misogyny and anti-intellectualism.

Go to church. Talk to a preacher. You need someone to tell you what to think. It might as well be Xtianity as anything you've come up with.

 

[amicus]

The name calling is so predictable, just as is the continued defense of mass government controlled health care...

Once upon a time I managed a herd of 35 milk cows. Kept them healthy and productive I did, I did. Restricted their intake, gave them shots when necessary and for prevention, had the Vet out on a regular basis, used bag balm for their tender udders, cleaned up behind them so they had a tidy environment.

Guess what? The infant mortality was zero. Of course they were in tip-top shape and selected sperm was used in the artificial insemination and vitamin supplements were a normal procedure.

If one views the postage stamp population of the 'leading' Euro nations and the confiscatory taxation, rules, regulations and so on, I find the application of the 'herd' mentality and controlled conditions quite similar.

But my cows were cows and even the Finns are human...or at least mostly so.

Amicus...

 

[Xelebes]

The name calling is so predictable,

It is as predictable as your long-winded dissertations that gloss over the topic at hand playing up all the old tropes from the under-educated Old South, like the second hand striking twelve.

 

[stephen55]

Once upon a time I managed a herd of 35 milk cows. Kept them healthy and productive I did, I did.

Amicus...

Ami, I'll grant that you were once a good cowherd. You should have stuck with it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The name calling is so predictable
.

Nobody's called you names-- simply offered their descriptions of your less-than-sterling behavior.

 

[Pure]

note to amicus

note to ami,

i don't call you names and you didn't respond to my last post. your present approach, reflected below, is to state that the social democratic countries are 'postage stamped size' and have cowed populations.

neither point is supported in the evidence. i'm in Canada and we have free speech, democracy, and no one is cowed by the gov't. Same applies in Germany and France. As to size, here's the list of the world's largest economies. Clearly the tax systems do not squelch these high performers.

Next to the rank number i've placed a star [*] for "universal health care", for the democracies. IOW, if the country with universal health coverage is democratic, that's roughly, social democracy.

Nominal GDPs, list by IMF, in US$ millions

World 61,963,429 —

European Union 16,106,896

1 United States 14,624,184
2 People's Republic of China 5,745,133
*3 Japan 5,390,897
*4 Germany 3,305,898
*5 France 2,555,439
*6 United Kingdom 2,258,565
*7 Italy 2,036,687
*8 Brazil 2,023,528
*9 Canada 1,563,664
10 Russia 1,476,912
11 India 1,430,020
*12 Spain 1,374,779
*13 Australia 1,219,722
14 Mexico 1,004,042
*#15 South Korea 986,256
*16 Netherlands 770,312
===

*national/universal health care system in place, though the user, in some cases, pays a %age.
# some qualifications re democracy, but a national healthcare system in place
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2010/01/healthcare-system-in-korea.html
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/12/20/2010122001048.html




Population stats show we're hardly dealing with postage stamp size, and in fact the population of W. Europe, and social democratic gov'ts exceeds that of the US


Pos Country Population
1 Russia 141,950,000
2 German 81,700,000
3 Turkey 77,804,122
4 France 65,073,482
5 United K 61,113,205
6 Italy 60,494,632
7 Spain 46,661,950

11 Netherlan 16,402,414

----
Lastly here's a report on healthcare systems, from the 'net. A study by the Commonwealth Fund:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/1027_Davis_mirror_mirror_international_update_final.pdf


MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL:
AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE
PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE

Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Michelle M. Doty,
Alyssa L. Holmgren, Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea

May 2007

ABSTRACT: Despite having the most costly health system in the world, the United States consistently underperforms on most dimensions of performance, relative to other countries. This report—an update to two earlier editions—includes data from surveys of patients, as well as information from primary care physicians about their medical practices and views of their countries’ health systems. Compared with five other nations—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom—

the U.S. health care system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives. The U.S. is the only country in the study without universal health insurance coverage, partly accounting for its poor performance on access, equity, and health outcomes.

The inclusion of physician survey data also shows the U.S. lagging in adoption of information technology and use of nurses to improve care coordination for the chronically ill.

Support for this research was provided by The Commonwealth Fund. The views presented here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Commonwealth Fund or its directors, officers, or staff. This and other Fund publications are available online at

www.commonwealthfund.org. To learn more about new publications when they become available, visit the Fund’s Web site and register to receive e-mail alerts. Commonwealth Fund pub. no. 1027.
=====


ami The name calling is so predictable, just as is the continued defense of mass government controlled health care...

Once upon a time I managed a herd of 35 milk cows. Kept them healthy and productive I did, I did. Restricted their intake, gave them shots when necessary and for prevention, had the Vet out on a regular basis, used bag balm for their tender udders, cleaned up behind them so they had a tidy environment.

Guess what? The infant mortality was zero. Of course they were in tip-top shape and selected sperm was used in the artificial insemination and vitamin supplements were a normal procedure.

If one views the postage stamp population of the 'leading' Euro nations and the confiscatory taxation, rules, regulations and so on, I find the application of the 'herd' mentality and controlled conditions quite similar.

 

[amicus]

Pure: for the sake of conversation and clarification, let me note, for all to read, that you have announced that you are a self avowed Marxist/Socialist/Communist, and that all your Posts are intended to support your basic assumptions.

Just to clarify: I am an American; a strict Constitutionalist, who advocates minimal government and maximum individual rights.

I fully understand your Utopian dream of having the intelligentia run everything, manage the lives of all and nurture the common man who is too stupid, in your eyes, to manage his own affairs.

Democracy is a messy affair, granted; but our form of it, as a Representational Republic, lifted a Nation from obscurity to world dominance. Go figure?

Your philosophy and economic systems, and social overview, is a remnant of Plato's 'Republic', and Aristotles, 'Golden Mean', wherein the smart asses of the social structure decided how the masses should live. It is nothing new; a reflection of Tribal Chieftans, Popes, Kings and Aristocracies, all of whom, with good intentions of course, believed that they were ordained, in one fashion or another, to RULE.

Fuck You, and the Gilded Alpaca you rode in on.

The Primary question is, and is also the great American Experiment; 'can man rule himself', or must he be ruled by others?

Rational men will always provide for themselves and their families in all ways, be it retirement or health needs or insurance to minimize their adversities. But it is not about the vast majority with which you are concerned, they look after themselves and you know it.

It is the poor you get all teary eyed about and your heart bleeds for the under 90 IQ, and your compassion insists that you attempt to force your fellow man to provide for them.

Again. Fuck you and the rotting Albatross around your neck.

The poor and the infirm will always be with us. It is the generosity and the common goodness of man in general that has always and will always, succor them in times of need.

Need I list the Charities and the Churches that have always administered the poor, or do you accede the point?

People naturally care for other people; even outside family and friends, they donate and assist those in need, it is human nature.

And that is the abject failure of the entrenched left. They, and you, have such a low opinion of your fellow man, that you believe they must be forced to administer the bottom of society.

You are so, so, wrong, in all ways.

Amicus

 

[stephen55]

ami, you forgot to mention that humanity is mud to be ground on, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it, etc., etc....
And now, on with the name calling.

Fuck you and the Rand bitch you worship.

Fuck you and the Peikoff ass you both worship and fuck.

Let's see now...fascist Nazi stormtrooper of the paranoid ultra rightest Gestapo...

Frightened little boy of the vast mentally disorganized Hitlerian supremacist wannabe, unable to think beyond "We The Living"...

and so on and so forth....

How's the Randian albatross working out for you, so far? You are so, so wrong, in all ways...except in keeping cows.

It's your turn.

 

[Pure]

response to ami

hi ami,
again, you've got your facts wrong, and also misrepresent.

i am a social democrat: that means i find the gov'ts of Canada, Norway, and to a lesser extent, Germany, to be among the best going, AND the state of the society, in these cases, is prosperous and the citizens are free.

Canada and several other social democracies have constitutions as well as charters of rights. the US is not special in that regard, as you seem to suggest. Our Charter lays out individual rights to be guarded against gov't intrustions.

As to rule by elites: All of these countries are democracies, with proper elections, and you know it: Canada, Norway, Germany, Holland, France, Italy, Sweden and so on.

The Democracy list published and compiled each year by The Economist, a neutral source given these rankings, based on whether the gov't is authoritarian, proper elections, rights and so on.

http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf

DEMOCRACY RANKING

Norway 1
Iceland 2
Denmark 3
Sweden 4
New Zealand 5
Australia 6
Finland 7
Switzerland 8
Canada 9
Netherlands 10
Luxembourg 11
Ireland 12
Austria 13
Germany 14
Malta 15
Czech Republic 16
US 17

----
All the above are prosperous and free. US was ranked 17, since your citizens have LESS protection agains gov't *in practice* than several other countries, though all the above places are excellent; would that all humanity had access to one of them!

All of the above are republics and representative democracies; proper courts and legal systems based on written laws; that form not neither invented nor perfected in the US.

In conclusion, the best cases above do far better at keeping moms and newborns alive, than does the US. And life expectancies are as good or better. IOW, citzens' freedoms are NOT reduced to maintain universal health care.

you are willing to sacrifice about 19,000 infants per year--individuals-- for your market ideal. THAT, my friend, is utitlitarian thinking: for the greater good, the reasonably well-to-do majority, you sacrifice tiny individuals, whom you make a lot of fuss about, in other regards.

you suggestion below that the poor are deservedly so, and should rely on charities and churches is rather callous. in any case, newborns can't really hustle themselves off to the nearest church-run charity ward, can they?

---
PS. my alpaca wants to thank you herself for your last midnight visit. not since the late Howard Roark's erections, has she been so impressed.



ami Pure: for the sake of conversation and clarification, let me note, for all to read, that you have announced that you are a self avowed Marxist/Socialist/Communist, and that all your Posts are intended to support your basic assumptions.

Just to clarify: I am an American; a strict Constitutionalist, who advocates minimal government and maximum individual rights.

I fully understand your Utopian dream of having the intelligentia run everything, manage the lives of all and nurture the common man who is too stupid, in your eyes, to manage his own affairs.

Democracy is a messy affair, granted; but our form of it, as a Representational Republic, lifted a Nation from obscurity to world dominance. Go figure?

Your philosophy and economic systems, and social overview, is a remnant of Plato's 'Republic', and Aristotles, 'Golden Mean', wherein the smart asses of the social structure decided how the masses should live. It is nothing new; a reflection of Tribal Chieftans, Popes, Kings and Aristocracies, all of whom, with good intentions of course, believed that they were ordained, in one fashion or another, to RULE.

Fuck You, and the Gilded Alpaca you rode in on.

 

[amicus]

If anyone is still following this Thread, which I doubt, it may seem pointless to continue the acerbic debate between the socialist apologists and myself, and perhaps it is...

I wasn't around to read, first hand, the glowing reports emerging from Communist Russia and Fascist Germany and Italy during the 20's & 30's, but there is recorded history and even old Newspapers that Historiographers can delve into, to read as it was to confirm my assertions.

But I was around from the 50's onward to read, once again, the glowing reports on the 'five-year plans' of the Soviets as the new wave of Socialism seemed about to sweep the entire globe, from Asia to East Germany. Nice how that worked out, eh?

Pure and Stephen ignore the recent headlines about the continuing failure of the P.I.G.S. of Europe; those so called, 'social democracies', eight or nine of them, that are on the verge of economic collapse because of the social entitlements their Union run industries have indulged in.

If you take the time to survey each on the list provided, with Norway at the top; go through them, one by one and understand their population, their economy and their dependence on the still producing States to support them, you will begin to understand the continuing trend of the failure of the concept of 'social democracy', which is merely a sociallly acceptable term for Democratic Socialism, which most socialist nations use to pacify and ameliorate those who question the premises in democratic socialism.

Essentially, in most of these listed Nations, the government owns and runs everything. It determines what is produced and who works and what they are paid, along with their health and retirement plans. Lip service is paid to the free enterprise portion of those societies, which are, by definition, State Capitalism, as in China, and function as a tool of the government.

What is wrong with that, you might ask?

The 'wrongness' of that, my friends, is that when Government chooses the direction of an entire society, and directs the energy of a Nation in one direction, like Greece and Spain, if they choose wrong, and they always do to fill their own pockets with public monies, then the gradual decline begins and conditions worsen for the population at large.

Government workers remain fat and well fed, as the working public endures a continuing decline in their standard of living...and worst of all, when the time comes to pay those retirement benefits and health claims, the government has already spent the money on Solar and Windmill farms that operate at a continuing loss and require constant input of public funds to continue operating.

Not only is every democratic socialist Nation doomed to failure; the sacrifices of individual rights and liberties turns out to be all for naught as the citizens have neither security or freedom when push comes to shove. And the shoving, in Europe, has already begun.

There is no need for me to champion the efficacy of the free marketplace; the remaining vestiges of Capitalism is all that supports these failing reminders of totalitarianism in Europe.

It seems to me that there might just be a 'stupid gene', inbred and passed along the inherited line of those who continue to need guidance in their social and political lives. Unable to even consider the benefits of individual human liberty, they continue to lash out at anyone who dares remind them that they have given up their humanity in favor of herd mentality.

Philosophically, when one advocates the absence of moral and ethical absolutes in human actions, then it is inevitable that they decline into social relativism as a last refuge.

Amicus Veritas

 

[amicus]

Curious to discover why Norway is touted at the top of the list in prior Posts, I did a little 'cherrypicking' to expose the reasons.

Norway has a King! Ain't that wunnerful; maybe we should annoint Nobama?

Norway has less than 5 million population, 4.8 million. (smaller than New York City?)

Norway is Libya in disguise with the bulk of its' income derived from State owned oil wells in the North Sea!

~~~

With a quirky contrariness as deeply etched in the national character as the fjords carved into its rugged landscape, Norway has thrived by going its own way. When others splurged, it saved. When others sought to limit the role of government, Norway strengthened its cradle-to-grave welfare state.

Absolute Vodka prices

When I lived in Norway 10 years ago a bottle of Vodka cost nearly 300 Kroner, about £30 for a bottle and there is 10 year’s inflation to take into account.


Sellers cost 29.73
Vinmonopolets costs 11.11
Alcohol tax 197.12
Sales tax 57.48
Packaging tax 1.56
Total 297.00

Total Tax 199.16

Norway's left-leaning government narrowly defeated a splintered center-right opposition in the September 2009 elections. Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg's ruling Labor Party government came under challenge by Siv Jensen and her right-wing populist Progress Party (which has gained support by calling for lowering Norway's notoriously high taxes and tightening immigration rules), as well as Erna Solberg and her center-right Conservative Party. Debate centered on how to manage the Nordic welfare state's oil wealth.[4]
Norway is one of the world's richest countries in per capita terms. It has an important stake in promoting a liberal environment for foreign trade. Its large shipping fleet is one of the most modern among maritime nations. Metals, pulp and paper products, chemicals, shipbuilding, and fishing are the most significant traditional industries.


Norway's emergence as a major oil and gas producer in the mid-1970s transformed the economy. Large sums of investment capital poured into the offshore oil sector, leading to greater increases in Norwegian production costs and wages than in the rest of western Europe up to the time of the global recovery of the mid-1980s. The influx of oil revenue also permitted Norway to expand an already extensive social welfare system. Norway has established a state Petroleum Fund that exceeded $132.6 billion as of December 2004. The fund primarily will be used to help finance government programs once oil and gas resources become depleted. Norway is currently enjoying large foreign trade surpluses thanks to high oil prices. Unemployment remains currently low (3%-4% range), and the prospects for economic growth are encouraging thanks to the government's stimulative fiscal policy and economic recovery in the United States and Europe.

~~~

A tidy little socialist state, comparable to Oil rich Arab States that use the bulk of their petro dollars to build ornamental tributes to their Kings and toadies.

Long live Norway, a slave State with oil.

Hip, hip, hooray!

Amicus

Edited to add: I forgot to mention that Norway has Conscription, forcing the young to serve in the Military, how wunnerful freedom and democracy is, eh? Oh, yes, number two, Iceland, with a population less than Peoria, Illinois, 317,000, is losing a half a percent per year, and is ruled by a socialist party and a green party and suffered an massive economic collapse in 2007. Further, the utilities, electricity, etcetera, are all government owned and managed....Iceland...number two? not even worth a footnote...

ami

 

[Pure]

note to amicus.

Degree of Democracy, ratings by The Economist .

DEMOCRACY RANKING

Norway 1
Iceland 2
Denmark 3
Sweden 4
New Zealand 5
Australia 6
Finland 7
Switzerland 8
Canada 9
Netherlands 10
Luxembourg 11
Ireland 12
Austria 13
Germany 14
Malta 15
Czech Republic 16
US 17

===

ami Essentially, in most of these listed Nations, the government owns and runs everything

It's hard to know what to say about such blatant ignorance; or perhaps it's just blathering. Who cares?

 

[Pure]

Economic freedom

Besides misrepresenting the European social democracies as slave states, ami suggests they lack economic freedom, e.g. private ownership, freedom of entrepreneurs, etc.

What are the facts?

Contrary to Amicus, social democracy does NOT much limit economic freedom.

Private ownership is widespread.

And they are democracies with individual rights safeguards.



http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking

The Heritage organization is a conservative group that gives its rankings based on property rights, enterprise, opportunity, etc. The top 6 are called 'fully free' and this includes Canada.


Index of Economic Freedom

[Free down to 6.]

1 HK
2 Singap
3 **Australia
4* New Zeal
5 #** Switz
6 **Canada

----
[mostly free, 7 and below, down to 33]

7 Ireland
8 *Denmark,
9 US
10 Bahr
11 Chile
12 Maurit
13 *Luxem
14 # Eston
15 *Netherlan
16 *UK
17 *Finland
18 Cyprus
19 Macau
20 #Japan

21 *Austria
22 *Sweden
23 *Germany
25 Taiwan

28 *Czech Rep

30. *Norway
31. **Spain

['fairly free, 34 and below, till 90, where 'mostly unfree' begins]
35. South Korea
45. Israel

* (bold) social democracies with nat'l healthcare programs
** partly social democracy; not party in power. nat'l healthcare program.
#universal healthcare program.

=====
It's to be noted that Norway is nearly the same, on this list, as Taiwan, Spain, Czech Republic and South Korea. There is lots of private ownership in all of these places. Denmark, a thoroughgoing social democracy is #8, just ahead in economic freedom, of the US at #9!


In my opinion, one has partly 'social democracy' (**) in australia, switzerland and canada. in the last two, social democrats poll about 20% of votes. All have universal healthcare systems, however, constituting 4 of the top 6 economically free nations.