Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Oct 2013, 5:12 pm

Neal Anderth wrote:The 'Nordic Model' certainly looks to be working well. The question that's come up for me is how transferable is it to other countries. Does it rely on the more homogeneous nature of those countries for it's success?

Iceland's response in the wake of the 2008 collapse seemed pretty remarkable as well, but they're all related.
Be aware, I was actually answering a question about my philosophy - which is not about national political systems.

Anyway, what about your philosophy?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 29 Oct 2013, 6:27 pm

Neal Anderth wrote:The 'Nordic Model' certainly looks to be working well. The question that's come up for me is how transferable is it to other countries. Does it rely on the more homogeneous nature of those countries for it's success?.

I'm not so sure they could be considered successful. I have read a number of articles recently that seem to indicate all of the Nordic countries are scaling back their social safety nets, i.e. Denmark is reducing Unemployment Benefits from 4 years to 2 years, Sweden is reducing subsidies to immigrants, etc.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 30 Oct 2013, 1:55 am

Is that really failure or just back and forth revision? Do they have national debts comparable to the USA?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 31 Oct 2013, 7:10 pm

danivon wrote:Is that really failure or just back and forth revision? Do they have national debts comparable to the USA?

If the are making the changes because the current model is unsustainable, which is what the articles all said were the reasons, then yes I would say that qualifies as a lack of success. The difference between there and here is politicians with the courage to make the hard decisions.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 01 Nov 2013, 12:31 am

Well, I have to take your word for what they say, don't I? But the changes look less like a fundamental repudiation of a social democratic state and more like a limit to the scope.

In other words, we are veering off philosophy and into politics.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 02 Nov 2013, 9:30 pm

danivon wrote:Well, I have to take your word for what they say, don't I? But the changes look less like a fundamental repudiation of a social democratic state and more like a limit to the scope.

In other words, we are veering off philosophy and into politics.



Here was the article on Denmark I referenced. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world ... d=pl-share

However, don't bother going to a lot of effort to rebut it. I read the article when it first came out 6 months ago. However, I don't have the time or the inclination to get into an in depth discussion about it anymore.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 04 Nov 2013, 1:04 pm

Archduke Russell John wrote:Here was the article on Denmark I referenced. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/world ... d=pl-share

However, don't bother going to a lot of effort to rebut it. I read the article when it first came out 6 months ago. However, I don't have the time or the inclination to get into an in depth discussion about it anymore.
No need for an in depth discussion. I only need do a little effort to see that it answers my question:

NYT wrote:The Danish model of government is close to a religion here, and it has produced a population that regularly claims to be among the happiest in the world. Even the country’s conservative politicians are not suggesting getting rid of it.


So Denmark is retooling itself, tinkering with corporate tax rates, considering new public sector investments and, for the long term, trying to wean more people — the young and the old — off government benefits.


Looks like Denmark is in reality altering the scope of it's welfare provision, but because it is 'failing', but to ensure that it can continue to succeed in the future - one measure of that is overall prosperity (where Denmark and others do very well) and happiness (referenced in the article itself).

Personally I am not too comfortable with people being too comfortable when voluntarily not working. But they are not the prime recipients of welfare (they are the high profile extreme examples that right wingers like to highlight). And they don't 'disprove' the underlying philosophy - which is where we are supposed to be discussing things. If you did want to get into a deep discussion on this (which you have said you don't), it belongs in Politics.

Anyway, going back to this:

Neal Anderth wrote:Well maybe it would be helpful if people spent more time describing their own life philosophy.
I've started, and not one other person has bothered to attempt to do this.

:shrug:
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 04 Nov 2013, 1:44 pm

I don't really have a life philosophy. I guess you could call me a classic conservative in that sense, although it's not a form of conservatism that most people at Redscape would recognise.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Nov 2013, 2:39 pm

Capitalism with relatively high tax rates, universal health care, subsidies for elderly and those unable to work, long-term unemployment (2 to 3 years) for those unable to find work, substantial cuts in defense spending, less intervention oversea, less foreign aid, equal access to educational opportunities, non-discrimination in the workplace, municipal broadband, extensive government investments in infrastructure, space and science; tight enforcement of anti-trust laws to prevent oligopolies or monopolies; restrictions on size of broadcasting and media outlets to encourage diversity of views; student aid/subsidies to state colleges to make them affordable to poor and middle-class incomes; tax policies, high minimum wage laws, regulation of WallStreet, promotion of unions, etc to promote less stratification of income; campaign reform to limit money in politics, including restrictions on movement from government to being a lobbyist and a constitutional amendment to repeal citizens united; a thriving private sector including reducing red tape where possible, easy access to government regs and help with compliance; loans to small business, some exemptions from gov regs , help with compliance; mandatory pensions for those who employ more than 50 workers; child care tax credits; paid family leave with large employers; mandatory paid 4 weeks vacation after a year; high estate tax rates that prevent extensive transfer of wealth across generations; a general policy to have a person's share of wealth in society related to the extent and quality of their work and contribution towards society (if you make a billion years managing a hedge fund you should much of that would be paid in taxes whereas a brain surgeon making a couple of million should keep most of it)
My political philosophy is in the details
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 04 Nov 2013, 8:11 pm

danivon wrote:
Neal Anderth wrote:Well maybe it would be helpful if people spent more time describing their own life philosophy.
I've started, and not one other person has bothered to attempt to do this.

Are we talking spiritual philosophy or political philosophy?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 05 Nov 2013, 12:59 am

Whichever, both or neither.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 05 Nov 2013, 9:30 pm

danivon wrote:Whichever, both or neither.

Well, I would say this is the wrong forum for political philosophy. My spiritual philosophy is that God exists and my relationship with him is mine.

Of course my "Life" philosophy is Be excellent to each other.....and party on dude.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 261
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 9:16 am

Post 12 Nov 2013, 4:15 am

Religious Philosophy - I put no stock, faith or belief in religion.
Political Philosophy - I put no stock, faith or belief in Politics.
Life Philosophy - Live life you never get out alive.

Ozzie.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 23 Nov 2013, 7:24 am

Not sure why political philosophy is somehow not relevant to one's overall philosophy. If they are disconnected, than that suggests inconsistency of thought at the least.

Similarly, one's religious outlook (or lack of) is a part of their overall philosophical position. Whether you think it's religion that drives your views or not, they are part of the same thing.

So...

ARJ wrote:Well, I would say this is the wrong forum for political philosophy. My spiritual philosophy is that God exists and my relationship with him is mine.


Of course my "Life" philosophy is Be excellent to each other.....and party on dude.[/quote]The Ted "Theodore" Logan-Bill S Preston Esq version of the strong Golden Rule. But interesting that you don't even want to discuss how that interacts with your religious views or vice versa.

OtB wrote:Religious Philosophy - I put no stock, faith or belief in religion.
Political Philosophy - I put no stock, faith or belief in Politics.
Life Philosophy - Live life you never get out alive.
Like you I'm not religious. However, on the second part the reality is that while you may not believe in politics (perhaps you mean any party as being better than another, or politicians having integrity, or in any particular ideology), but politics has an effect on your life whether you like it or not.

And no, we don't get out alive. So other than 'living', does that mean there's nothing to do in life worth anything?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3239
Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

Post 23 Nov 2013, 5:59 pm

danivon wrote:The Ted "Theodore" Logan-Bill S Preston Esq version of the strong Golden Rule. But interesting that you don't even want to discuss how that interacts with your religious views or vice versa.


Probably because I am trying to avoid more flare ups. But realistically my political philosophy and religious are most likely two sides of the same coin. Politically, I lean towards the classical liberal model (what today I believe most would qualify as liberatarian) which tends to focus on limited gov't staying out of people lives as much as possible.

Religiously, I tend towards the personal relationship with God. Churches have a very limited focus and should not focus on telling people how their relationship with God should manifest.

This is all very simplistic of course