args

America should become a Social Democracy

Social Democracy - a country that democratically achieves socialist goals within a Capitalist framework through a strong welfare state and the regulation of private industry. Should - ought to become - I define this contextually America - The United States of America Let me clarify a few points. Firstly, socialism has been given a bad name by the USSR. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't just socialist, it was a communist country. While all communists are also socialists, not all socialists are communists. Social Democracy is a moderate ideology, between Capitalism on the right, and Communism on the left. It's ends and means are democratic, gradual, and economically feasible. If people want it they can give birth to it at the ballot box, and if it eventually no longer suits them, they can kill it at the ballot box. A Social Democracy guarantees access to certain basic necessities of modern life. For instance, a Social Democracy guarantees universal health care, dental care, education, social insurance, welfare, old age pension, and equal rights to all of it's citizens. Naturally, there is higher taxation in order to pay for this. People in Social Democracies are free - they still have all their civil liberties, and the right to vote. They additionally are given freedom by their greater financial security. This brings me to my first contention. Contention 1: Americans will be more free in a Social Democracy While the Declaration of Independence was an eloquent document, it did not win over as many common people as Thomas Paine's pamphlet, published in the same year - Common Sense. Thomas Paine was influenced by Enlightenment thinking. He believed in liberty. Once the American Revolutionary War had ended, Paine believed we weren't doing enough for freedom. Many, including Jefferson, still had slaves. Paine wanted to abolish slavery. He later went even further than this, in 1795, when he wrote Agrarian Justice. He wrote that the unequal distribution of property was essentially theft. He wrote that every 21 year old should be given a sum of money (15 British pounds, which would have been more than enough for subsistence) and that all people over 50 should be given 10 British pounds a year, "not as charity, but as social justice." That sounds fairly socialist by today's standards. Here was a man who wanted society to be more democratic, more fair, and more free at the same time. This in a nutshell, is the society a social democracy would create. Contention 2: Social Democracy works. Sweden recovered from the recession faster than we did. Canada (which is relatively more socially democratic than the U.S) had already finished recovering in 2009. Norway has the greatest GDP per Capita, in the World. According to an OECD study, Finland has the best education system, in the world. Denmark has the most social mobiltiy in the world. America is supposed to be the land of opportunity, but we are 10th in social mobility. This is because societies which are more rigidly laissez faire tend to create socioeconomic conditions which make social mobility more difficult. This is a list of the top 10 socially mobile countries:1. Denmark, 2. Australia, 3. Norway, 4. Finland, 5. Canada, 6. Sweden, 7. Germany, 8. Spain, 9. France, and 10. USA All the countries ahead of us are at least slightly more socialist than we are. And by slightly I mean that they all have universal health care coverage. Obamacare is a solution which works within the private sector, (and the plan was based on a similar plan from the Heritage Foundation, a plan more conservative than Nixon's) and even once it is completely implemented, there will not be universal healthcare. While we are on the subject of healthcare, I should note that many people claim that the U.S. healthcare system is the best in the world. However, the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. 38th in health care, in the world. 38! America shouldn't settle for 38. Especially when America is number 1 in health care expenditures. When profits are put over people, healthcare becomes more expensive, less effective, and less readily available. Contention 3: Happiness One of the most important questions in this debate is whether living in a Social Democracy, or living in a Capitalist system would make people happier. In my view, the best metric to use when judging a system is whether or not it is conducive to, or detrimental to the happiness of people living within that system. I understand that happiness is subjective. It should be noted however, that OECD did an international survey which measured happiness around the world. These were the 10 top happiest countries on earth: 1. Norway, 2. Denmark, 3. Australia, 4. New Zealand, 5. Sweden, 6. Canada, 7. Finland, 8. Switzerland, 9. The Netherlands, and 10. USA Note that this list is nearly identical to the one on social mobility. Once again, all of the countries happier than the US are also more socialist than the U.S. The amount of socialism varies country to country, but again, all of these countries have universal healthcare. http://www.forbes.com... Contention 4: Greater socioeconomic equality isn't only better for society, it is also better for economic stability Let's say that there are 600 cars for sale. Let's say that there is a large middle class - 590 people can afford one car per person, and one very rich guy can afford 10. 590 cars will probably get sold. The rich guy will buy anything between 1 and 10 cars, and that's fine. Let's say, on the other hand, that your selling cars in a very stratified society. 200 middle class folks can afford 1 car each. The other 390 people can't afford a car. The rich guy can afford 400 cars. 200 cars will definitely get sold. While the rich guy can afford 400 cars, he'll still only buy 1-10. Okay, McCain has 13. But still, the rich guy will not be buying a fleet of 400 cars. Socioeconomic inequality is the root cause of our buisness cycle. Over the last 30 years, as the gap between rich and poor has grown, the following has happened: Nearly all economic growth went to the top. Middle and lower income wages have stagnated, even as productivity skyrocketed. When we produce more than we can sell, that hurts our economy. This is the root cause of boom and bust. (In addition to weak regulations which allowed Wall Street to go crazy). Furthermore, governments which do more to directly employ people in times of recession are better at countering the business cycle. Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy, enabled countries like Sweden and Canada and Germany to recover far more quickly than the U.S. Conclusion Should we settle for a society which is increasingly stratified and unequal? A society wherein 46 million people are living below the poverty line? Should we accept the fact that our educational and health systems are lagging behind other industrialized countries? Or should we forge a better society, and a better country. Let's alleviate poverty. Let's strengthen the middle and working classes. Let's make sure that nobody has to hit rock bottom - that certain basic necessities are available to anyone down on their luck. It's the right thing to do morally speaking. It makes economic sense. And it fullfills the American Dream. Some say that freedom from want isn't really an American freedom. The truth is that you don't have to look any further than the Statue of Libery: Give me your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.