Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "Mark Levin: We are pissed off" video.
-
7
-
2
-
2
-
@downwindfish1 Europe's trying it, now. But Texas, alone, is bigger than Germany. There is no law that says an individual state may not indulge in more socialistic programs to help the needy and so forth. But even just Texas is more diverse than Germany. There are not one-size-fits-all prescriptions to make your social democracy work on a large scale. And the only way to impose social democracy everywhere (because many states just won't stand for it), is by force, from above.
No. Centralized governance is the wrong direction to go. Government picking winners and losers is the wrong way to go. lots of problems cropping up in Europe as they embrace multiculturalism. Cultural restraints that make nanny-government features sustainable over long periods of time start to fall apart. Scandinavian countries, especially, are steeped in the responsibility of the individual to the whole. Bringing in a ton of refugees from other cultures, who aren't indoctrinated the same way is a problem for them. A Swede would be ashamed to be dependent on the state without working. A Somali might say "If you're dumb enough to pay me, I'll just stay home and make babies, fool!"
There are also many authoritarian features that leak into the culture and governance under "social democracy." Now, a state the size of Texas can make adjustments. But a nation made up of many states, like the USA and like the EU WANTS to be, ends up making policies that work in one place and not another.
The fundamental problem with social democracy is that 50% plus 1 of the population can force 50% - 1 of the population submit to things to which the latter are 100% opposed. Social Democrats aren't content to do what THEY can to help their brothers. No. That's not enough. They must convince the GOVERNMENT to perform any and all functions the Social Democrats deem necessary, and impose those functions on all the land, by force.
"You voted for it. It's fair."
"I didn't know that's what I was asking for. I just thought you were bringing me some free stuff."
"Well, here's your free stuff. Now, comply."
Make your social democracy work on the local level, as the locals see fit. I'm fine with that. Usher in your social democracy from on high on mere majority vote, and you're storing up trouble, especially in a large, heterogeneous nation such as the USA. This is also the problem with the Globalist Project. You can't achieve without imposing it from above. The people on top can't possibly tailor one-size-fits-all policies that are suited to the geography, climate, culture, and economics of widely divergent localities or regions.
In the USA, you might say "What works for New York City does not work for North Dakota.
When I talk to social democrats, I say "Make it work well in your TOWN before seeking to impose it on 320 million people in one fell swoop by edict from on high."
As an American, I watch the wild swings in policy that occur in Europe. Too collectivist one day. Too open borders one day. Then the next day, Austria's outlawing Burkas or Hungary's eliminating all the critical-theory garbage that the colleges are putting out. America is 10 years behind on the takeover by leftists like you, and takes 10 more years to be rid of them. That's because we understand that rapid change, in itself, hurts the most vulnerable of us and can lead us into blind alleys faster than we can extricate ourselves.
That's why we're so slow to turn socialist (by gradually more and more fascistic measures) and why it'll take forever to un-do those changes, barring total collapse.
On the scale of a European nation, social democracy MIGHT work. So far, what I see is governments whose sensibilities and interests diverge more and more from those of the people they're supposed to serve. But they're SMALL enough to rectify their mistakes virtually overnight. In a nation the size of USA, you can't turn on a dime. That's why there are careful and specific limits set on what the government is empowered to do in the first place, and an elaborate set of checks and balances to prevent too much change, too quickly. If you assume that everything isn't already broken, then you don't want to break it by meddling too much.
In the USA, the "social democrats" should make their ideas fact on the local and state level. They can't. So they go to the feds, who not only have say over all the states, but can also print money they don't have, so it all seems to sort of work. Except we keep slipping deeper and deeper into the hole. You can't be the All-Father, bestowing gifts on the people, without extracting obedience FROM the people. You can't leave any loopholes and expect the culture to carry the day like you can in Scandinavian or European countries over many generations.
If social democracy were really GOOD for us, it would build from the local level upward. That's not what we're seeing. I think it's because too many people don't need or want government to be their mommy.
2
-
2
-
1