Social democracy and libertarianism

[Machjo]

I used to vote NDP before. In fact, I used to be a member of the NDP for a short time. I had this false image of the NDP initially, that it would certainly support freer trade with developing countries so as to give the poorest peoples in the world a chance to develop. That it would certainly support promoting more educational freedom so that all could have the education that was right for them, etc.

Instead what I'd seen was a party that cared about one thing and one thing only: special interests, especially labour unions. So now it supports all kinds of ishy washy projects like 'arts and culture', gay pride parades, CBC-RDI, bailouts for unionized corporations, etc. etc. etc. instead of focussing on all citizens. At the provincial level, it even keeps quiet about discriminatory laws giving special privileges to Catholics in the school system, but not other religions. And of course it could never support anything like a school voucher system to help home schoolers and Aboriginal or other minorities because such parental freedom would break the back of the teachers' unions. And of course it supports tariffs against developing countries to protect our unionized workers. Who cares about the poor abroad, it would seem.

So then I'd started exploring the 'centre' parties, like the Liberals and Conservatives (or Progressive conservatives at the provincial level), and at the federal level at least, they fared no better, also supporting corporate bailouts, tax-funded military industry, etc.

But now if we compare the NDP to the social democrats of Europe, it's a whole different story, In Europe, the social democrats are moderates, willing to work with, not against, the private sector. They often support two-tiered health care, and Sweden even supports school vouchers! Imagine that coming from a socialist country! Sure they have teir socialist streak when it comes to high quality universal compulsory education and free higher education for all, etc. Yet even in Sweden, a bastion of socialism you'd think, an estimated 10% of compulsory schools are private! And sure they have quality health care and cradle to grave benefits, etc. But they don't squander their money on gay pride parades and ishy washy stuff so much. Education, health care, etc. are bread and butter issues, and that's what they focus on. And sure in some of those countries, workers get to vote on the board of directors. In canada instead, all the NDP wants to do is give workers more right to strike. How does that help non-unionists. Social democrats in Europe seem to be more universalist in that respect too.

We find similar with libertarians in Canada. It's not interested in the military industrial complex so much as just getting government out of the way so people can get on with their lives. Again, they focus on bread and butter stuff unlike Libs and Cons.

And I think this is why I often find myself able to switch easily between social democracy and libertarianism, yet am turned off by NDP labour socialism or special interest Liberal and Conservative parties.

It would seem social democrats have focussed on bread and butter issues, as do libertarians, and not on ishy washy stuff that the 'centre' does.

Why do we not have this kind of bread-and-butter party in Canada, neither on the right nor on the left?

[punked]

You really don't know the NDP's history when it has gotten in power do you? I suggest you look to Saskatchewan when Tommy Douglas was leader of the CCF, or to Manitoba now. They are in no ones back pocket and are not socialist by any stretch of the imagination. They are progressive pragmatists, who like to get the job done.

BTW Sweden has a great private school system the largest one isn't even a real school it is on line it would never fly in Canada. Canadians have a much higher regard for every student learning.

PS workers having the right to unionize and strike brings up the benefits of all workers in the sector. In Japan with no labourized work force in the car industry Toytoa workers earn on average $10.50, an hour. Where in the US where UAW workers earn around 28 dollars an hour ununionized Toyota workers earn the same so the company can stop them from unionizing to ask for health benefits, and pensions. Game theory my friend. That is how unions help the average worker.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted recopied Opening Post

[Bonam]

And I think this is why I often find myself able to switch easily between social democracy and libertarianism, yet am turned off by NDP labour socialism or special interest Liberal and Conservative parties.

It would seem social democrats have focussed on bread and butter issues, as do libertarians, and not on ishy washy stuff that the 'centre' does.

Why do we not have this kind of bread-and-butter party in Canada, neither on the right nor on the left?

Social democracy and libertarianism are not very similar at all. Libertarianism pretty much advocates that government only concern itself with protecting the property rights of its people, and stay out of just about everything else. Social democracy advocates that the government should provide a wide array of socialized services to the populace. Libertarianism is a proponent of the very smallest government possible, while social democracy aims at an ever increasing government that provides more and more services.

As for why Canada doesn't have a party that is more concerned with the "bread and butter" issues... I don't know if that's true. All the parties profess to be concerned exactly with these issues, but once it actually gets to government, any party gets caught up in endless partisan fighting over meaningless irrelevancies. If the country you mentioned in your example really focuses better on the important, core, issues, perhaps it is because their political system is less prone to partisanship, rather than any huge differences between the principles of their parties and ours.

On a side note, from what I've seen of your posts in other threads, a libertarian party is definitely not what you are looking for.

[punked]

Social democracy and libertarianism are not very similar at all. Libertarianism pretty much advocates that government only concern itself with protecting the property rights of its people, and stay out of just about everything else. Social democracy advocates that the government should provide a wide array of socialized services to the populace. Libertarianism is a proponent of the very smallest government possible, while social democracy aims at an ever increasing government that provides more and more services.

As for why Canada doesn't have a party that is more concerned with the "bread and butter" issues... I don't know if that's true. All the parties profess to be concerned exactly with these issues, but once it actually gets to government, any party gets caught up in endless partisan fighting over meaningless irrelevancies. If the country you mentioned in your example really focuses better on the important, core, issues, perhaps it is because their political system is less prone to partisanship, rather than any huge differences between the principles of their parties and ours.

On a side note, from what I've seen of your posts in other threads, a libertarian party is definitely not what you are looking for.

However on the personal freedoms side of the coin one could easily argue that the NDP and the Libertarians are quite close. The NDP being the only party to fight against the War measures act being implemented because of its against, the right to free assembly, and other personal freedoms. It was truly the way a Libertarian would have responded while the other two parties were ready to flush those personal Liberties down the toilet. Or their stance on marijuana, and what personal freedoms people should have.

[madmax]

And I think this is why I often find myself able to switch easily between social democracy and libertarianism, yet am turned off by NDP labour socialism or special interest Liberal and Conservative parties.

Why do we not have this kind of bread-and-butter party in Canada, neither on the right nor on the left?

You are not alone. While I don't fully agree with your description of the NDP, there is no doubt that some of the earlier Liberatarian elements that exist as free spirits in the NDP might have drifted off sometime ago, with the last of them leaving with the Reform Party. There is little doubt that some of your views once existed in the NDP, however they could well have been brought to the table by lunch bucket union guys when the NDP was formed. Some of the unexpected factors when the CCF officially merged with Labour.

I have a Liberatarian streak in me. I think we all do to some degree. I don't think any person can claim to be the stereotype of a political party.

Thus LIbertarians sometimes not only can feel comfortable with the NDP sometimes, but just as likely to go to Reform or back in the day Social Credit. There isn't a strong Liberatian party, unfortuneately.

There isn't necessarily a strong Social Democratic Party either, as the NDP is often checked into being fiscally responsible and somewhat Conservative by nature when in power, thus are no wheres near Socialism in Europe, and the further left parties of Social Democracy don't really exist in Canada.

I Libertarian has to pick a party, sometimes its the Conservatives, sometimes its the NDP, but often they are without a real home.

There is a funny trend to what I call the Socialist Conservative. THey want all the Good things that Socialism brings, but want it managed in a Conservative fashion. THat is the difference between their vote going LIberal in that the Liberal PRograms are often big in nature and elaborate pork barrelling. Unfortuneately the Conservatives fall into that pork trap too, and have to continue to reinvent themselves in order to get back on track.

I don't think there is alot of room for a discussion on "Social Democracy" on MLW.... because I don't see it in this country,

And since you are stretching me to the limit on discussion Unions and making me go back to my University studies on Labour Market economics... well... I am pretty tapped out.

But I like the dimensions you have brought to the forum in all the threads you ahve posted.

[Machjo]

Social democracy and libertarianism are not very similar at all. Libertarianism pretty much advocates that government only concern itself with protecting the property rights of its people, and stay out of just about everything else. Social democracy advocates that the government should provide a wide array of socialized services to the populace. Libertarianism is a proponent of the very smallest government possible, while social democracy aims at an ever increasing government that provides more and more services.

I agree with this. What I was referring to rather was how social democrats (unlike their labour-socialist variety), though they do support high taxes and more government involvment in the economy, also generally want to spend that money wisely, on bread and butter issues, not gay pride parades. Libertarians (as opposed ot your Harper Conservative who wants to militarize the Arctic against imaginary enemies as part of a grand stimulous package), not wanting to get involved in the economy, naturally don't need to even worry about how they're going to spend the money. Essentially, that's the comparison I was making, that when a socialist party runs amock like the current federal NDP, then even a rational socialist will likely park his vote with libertarianism until that socialist party smartens up and becomes more of a bread and butter socialist party focussing on education, health care, etc., not gay pride parades.

As for why Canada doesn't have a party that is more concerned with the "bread and butter" issues... I don't know if that's true. All the parties profess to be concerned exactly with these issues, but once it actually gets to government, any party gets caught up in endless partisan fighting over meaningless irrelevancies. If the country you mentioned in your example really focuses better on the important, core, issues, perhaps it is because their political system is less prone to partisanship, rather than any huge differences between the principles of their parties and ours.

Perhaps right.

On a side note, from what I've seen of your posts in other threads, a libertarian party is definitely not what you are looking for.

I'm more socialistic at heart, but so disillusioned with the current left, and right, that libertarian seems like a good temporary place to park my vote until they smarten up. No government involvment is neutral at least. It might not be my first choice, but at least it's neutral ground, a kind of reset button if you will.

[madmax]

Social democracy and libertarianism are not very similar at all. Libertarianism pretty much advocates that government only concern itself with protecting the property rights of its people, and stay out of just about everything else. Social democracy advocates that the government should provide a wide array of socialized services to the populace. Libertarianism is a proponent of the very smallest government possible, while social democracy aims at an ever increasing government that provides more and more services.

That's it in a nutshell. Yet Macho isn't the first person I have encountered who has made similar points on swinging between Libertarian and Socialism. Maybe...... Freedom with the safety net. Most Trapeze artists use them these days.....

[Machjo]

That's it in a nutshell. Yet Macho isn't the first person I have encountered who has made similar points on swinging between Libertarian and Socialism. Maybe...... Freedom with the safety net. Most Trapeze artists use them these days.....

I've sometimes thought of the idea of 'free market socialism', whereby we could give workers more say on boards of directors, or expect the highest ethical standards from companies, but otherwise be free market overall. Or if we should have a high tax base with much government intervention, then ensure we have more say in how it's to be spent. Examples could include school vouchers. Socialist in the sense that society has a responsibility to fund them, but libertarian in that each parent has a say in how it's to be spent.

Or alternatively, make more taxes charity deductible, still expecting society to make a contribution, but giving them more say in where that money goes.

I like the socialist idea of caring for the less fortunate. It just seems though that oftentimes it's way too authoritarian too.

[Bonam]

I like the socialist idea of caring for the less fortunate. It just seems though that oftentimes it's way too authoritarian too.

I'm glad you see the authoritarian aspect of it. That is one of the things I find most reprehensible about mainstream socialist ideology.

[Machjo]

I should say too that I have a strong collaborative streak, totally anathema to the idea of a confrontational system. yet it would seem our structures are all based on a confrontational system. We even talk of the free market as 'competition' to win, not collaboration for the benefit of workers and customers. We talk of our political system as one in which politicians must 'compete' to win seats, not collaborate to create consensus. And in court, two lawyers are 'competing' to prove their case, not collaborating to find the truth.

Competition is even institutionalized. Let's just think of the billions of dollars a month that must be wasted on competition, one act simply nrutralizing another with nothing to show for it. A highly inefficient system at best.

[Machjo]

I'm glad you see the authoritarian aspect of it. That is one of the things I find most reprehensible about mainstream socialist ideology.

I fully agree. And their ideology isn't even consistent, even suspicious. If all they want is for the rich to help the poor, certainly making more taxes charity deductible could still achieve the same goal. After all, we'd still be required to give to a registered charity to get the tax break. For those of us who habitually give to charity, it would make no difference to us. But when the NDP insists that's not good enough, but that it must also dictate how that money is to be spent, then I get suspicious. If their only concern is that I do my share to help the less fortunate, then what should it matter whether the government or a charity get it? Is there some other plan? I think usually it's simply arrogance. They think they know best and we the sheeple sould just take it. Well, if that's the kind of socialism they have in mind, then let's go libertarian.

[Machjo]

Bear in mind though that Liberal and Concervative idology seems quite authoritarian too. I don't mind the government saying I must give my fair share for society, but I'd like a say in how it's spent. Socialists want to spend it on parades, and Conservatives against imaginary enemies.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ir would seem to me that folks are reaching for some ideal political stripe to paint on themselves. We not just conclude that you are an individual, and support an individualistic approach to politics. When you finally dust yourself off you will find yourself seeking an independent representative.

[Bonam]

Let's just think of the billions of dollars a month that must be wasted on competition, one act simply nrutralizing another with nothing to show for it.

It is not waste, because when people compete with each other, they must put in their very best effort to come out ahead. If they collaborate, and have no competitor, then they know they can proceed slowly, with less effort, and still succeed, sooner or later. Some ventures may indeed fail because they are out-competed, but overall progress and the enrichment of society proceeds faster as a result.

[Machjo]

It is not waste, because when people compete with each other, they must put in their very best effort to come out ahead. If they collaborate, and have no competitor, then they know they can proceed slowly, with less effort, and still succeed, sooner or later. Some ventures may indeed fail because they are out-competed, but overall progress and the enrichment of society proceeds faster as a result.

That depends. I'd rather use different terms. Instead of competitive, I'd rather think of a company as efficient. To take an example, when the government banned cigarette advertising, cigarette companies actually benefitted from it! Sure they became less competitive in that they no longer advertised. But on the other hand, since the others couldn't advertise either, ti didn't matter, thus saving money. So no, competition and efficiency are by no means the same thing.

Same with lawyers. Let's say a lawyer finds something against his client. Will he have the incentive to dig further into it? In a collaborative system, you could have two lawyers together, simply guided by conscience to find the truth whatever it is, not to try to prove a case and build the evidence around that. It's @ss backwards.

In politics, let's say we could write in the name of whom we want on the ballot. Maybe we'd get people in Parliament who don't really want to be there, but whom we chose for their character and competence. And like jury duty, would be there to serve us. Also, in a competitive system, were' more likely to have competitive candidates, who also refects itself in foreign military policy. The whole system is highly inefficient. Let's not confuse efficiency with competitiveness.