So they would be willing to impose an extremely intrusive social order on unwilling individuals based on some belief that this would decrease the risk in their life? I believe they would see such a course of action as increasing the chance of conflict and decreasing the quality of life, both of which would increase the risk in their life.
They would not be unwilling because at that point, before the society is constructed and the lives are lived, they would not know where they end up, at the top or at the bottom. Hence, it is a rational decision for all of them to make the bottom as comfortable as possible.
To me it's self-evident that a society that imposes such a draconian and intrusive social order on unwilling people would result in more conflict and therefore far more risk for each individual, not less. It's a rational decision for all of them to not create a social order that leads to constant tension and control of members.
I said that the welfare state would make a country poorer than it otherwise would be, thus increasing the chance of being destroyed. I never said it would lead to poverty.
A chance which is completely negligible.
I disagree, I think the chance is real as the last 2 centuries of warfare has shown. Major wars are devastating events.
It is actually not an absurd notion at all. All other things being equal, the stronger the national defense, the safer a country is from foreign threats.
I think your dismissal of such an obvious point is what's absurd.
Yes, because it is simply irrelevant. The age of conquest is over.
This is a dangerous and careless assumption. When the equilibrium changes, and it will change, we have no idea what a world without US supremacy will look like.
It is a strong correlation, but it is not absolute which could be taken as a hint that the USE of wealth might influence its efficacy in prolonging life expectancy. And such a use could for example be the smart use Singapore makes of its money or the larger western welfare state. But it is obviously not wealth alone that makes you live long.
I never said it was wealth alone that determined life expectancy, I said it was a very important factor, and showed a strong correlation. Even welfare is dependent on the wealth of a nation, with wealthier nations being able to afford more welfare spending more comfortably. Wealth is important for the well-being of a people, that's the only point I made.
Upholding the law is a good place to start for gaining stability. There is very little law and order in African states. I'd favor law enforcement over costly welfare schemes as a means of attaining stability for a poor African state.
So you would rather spend the money on more policy instead of eliminating the source of crime which is poverty among parts of the population?
By reducing crime, the economy will be helped by reducing losses from theft, and making people feel safe enough to invest and build businesses.
Effective enforcement of laws is cheaper than expensive welfare schemes and deals with the crime and criminals itself, rather than going after some assumed source.
You claim you didn't ignore my post, yet in your response you clearly indicate that you ignored my post.
I propose cutting social spending by 80% to Singapore's level, and you respond saying that we can't eliminate social spending.
One more time, I am suggesting we cut social spending by 80% to South-Korean/Singapore/etc's levels. Let's try it for a few decades, and if it works, let's take my suggestion and eliminate social welfare altogether. If it doesn't work we can go back to bankrupting the West with social spending.
Just respond to the part in bold, as that's the crux of my proposal.
So how bout it, willing to cut social spending by 80% to Asian tiger levels?
That's hilarious. AGAIN, for the third time. If your experiment of cutting expenditure by 80% Singaporean style was successful, that wouldn't be proof that cutting it completely would be evenly successful because their welfare system still hinges on state intervention, just on smarter one. Hence, a complete reduction would be suicidal even if, again, your experiment was successful.
So for the third time, you refuse to answer my question. Notice the parts in bold, you completely ignored them, AGAIN.
This is not how to contribute constructively to a debate. Your recalcitrance is very immature and it is this type of attitude you're displaying now towards me that leads to discussions like this deterioriating into name-calling and senseless back-and-forth attacks.
Are you or are you not willing to cut social spending by 80% to Asian tiger levels?
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man"
Inscribed on the roof of the Jefferson Memorial