The great Jimmy Carter

I think welfare to a large extent is a sham. It's not people being social but it's people giving money to the government so that they don't have to be social themselves. Often this money that is given through state social systems is just printmoney. They just print some money to give to people, which just increases debt, in stead of giving a share of their earnings through work, which wouldn't increase debt.I think a larger share of the huge sums of social money should go through families, in a more organized way. All this talk of government schemes to help the poor are just from people who don't care about their extended family. They probably have nephews and nieces, aunts and uncles, who are in dire need, but don't help them themselves, but ask the government to do it for them. They probably don't even know who their nephews and nieces, uncles and aunts are.A very interesting level of socio-economic activity, the extended family level, has been weakened by Carter and his counterparts in Europe. Family life used to be much richer (both in money and culture terms) in times past in Western countries.Lacking state social security, familylife is richer in Indonesia, then it is in the Netherlands. Obviously I can't say that social arrangements are good enough in Indonesia, because people in Indonesia are sometimes still starving, but to have a social-security system like in the West that weakens family structure is also unacceptable.I think the exsessive social programmes is what most defined the times of Carters administration. But of course that was a movement much bigger then Carter himself inspired, he just presided over it, doing nothing much about it, presided over the developing malaise. It was inspired by a great many selfish baby-boomers who wanted to burden their children with debt rather then burden themselves, and selling out family life in some other ways too. (sexual promiscuity)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'll agree with that. American presidents are among the best presidents in the world. My comments should not be interpreted to mean that Carter is a bad person.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are just blindly asserting that social programs do not weaken familybonds, besides why not have social programs based on familybonds? I think you will find that it is the socialists who'd most oppose social-programs like that, since the socialist agenda is not actually for people to be social themselves.Shift a percentage of the huge social money (maybe not so huge in the USA) to extended families, on a cure for pay basis. You have to pay your family when they are in need, but when they are not in need, you can keep the money yourself. That would give an incentive for people to get of welfare. On the downside it would also create huge fights within families but uhm... dealing with the embarassment/power-issues of giving and receiving social help this way, is just a basic part of humanity that is very meaningful in my opinion. Giving and receiving money through some institutional social program doesn't have much human value IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'm just talking about extended-family, not primary family. There are modern communication methods to deal with distance, besides the then by law transfer of money to family in need would largely just be automatically deducted from bankaccount or paycheck. There would be no law that you have to visit your extended-family in need, just an incentive to do so.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Disagree. You quite legitimately identify some possible problems with family social structures, however there are some problems with socialism too. Totalitarianism is obviously (as history and logic shows) one of them. The state is even felt to be overbearing in countries such as Sweden etc, let alone Cuba, or North Korea.No social system is going to work, without it being based on people acting social in the human sense. That means that systems based on enlightened self-interest won't work, as well as systems where the social action is deferred to the "expert" political leaders or "scientific" organizers. I wonder if you can agree to that principle, if not agreeing that family social structures are the solution.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The tendency for totalitairianism in socialism comes from deferring the social action to a few political leaders, or "scientific" experts. Even if the people are good intentioned, this will create such an enormous amount of pressure on these few people, that it might easily lead to abuse of power.There's just no getting away from people being financially social on a personal basis. To try to get away from that by creating mechanisms and non-intrusive resources is the fantasy. I don't like the sort of people socialism creates that are "empowered individuals", and have a "myriad" of different social relationships, but when push comes to shove, they don't actually know how to deal with the responsibility of giving or receiving aid on a personal basis.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think Sadam of the ruling socialist Ba'ath party is the dictator, and Bush is the elected president. It's a bit convenient for you to not mention the socialist dictators Bush is fighting against. I think what Bush is doing is warranted as a response to the WTC destruction. It's his job to come up with ideas like the Bush doctrine, where if it was generally decided that it was a bad idea, he could be corrected by congress etc.The electionsystem in the Netherlands is somewhat tribal still. The big chiefs of the tribes settle the political questions among themselves. The concensus of the manyparty system which you praise, is settled among a small group of politicians.I don't think it's very interesting to discuss the technicalities of a family social structure, I just assume that there are solutions to the problems you raised. Living in a society that has family social structures might be a benefit to orphans for instance, because they might more easily integrate into a family. You are wrong on one fundamental point though, family social structures are not about lineage, they are about marriage. The husband of your sister would be closer to you, then the son of your sister, where in lineage the son would be closer then the husband.In democratic socialist countries you have participation of people through politics yes, so in that way the social action is not completely deferred to political leaders. However if you look to the attitudes and opinions expressed by people commonly on the social system, it is much a greedy hatered from those who give, and on the other side a lazy consumerist attitude of those who receive that seems prevalent. So now in correcting that "abuse" of the system, countries are moving to more and more intrusive measures on those that receive.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The other socialist country I was talking about that Bush is fighting against is North Korea. A tendency for totalitairianism does not mean that in each and every case there would have to be a totalitairian regime. I think it's not credible if you deny that there is this tendency in socialism. Even on a small scale you can see social workers and the like revelling in the control they have over people's lives.I don't know about the voter corruption to which you refer, anyway the population was about evenly split in their choice for Gore or Bush, and in great majority they are now happy that it was Bush and not Gore AFAIK.You're right that a family social structure would put a lot of pressure on marriage to turn into a purely economic arrangement, and that is how such a scheme might fail. I don't think that a plan having some weaknesses therefore makes it useless.AFAIK the Bush doctrine is to go after countries which harbour terrorists. How you can say that this is not in response to the WTC destruction by terrorists is beyond me.You are misinformed about the democratic content of many-party coalition government. The socialist party in the Netherlands (where I lived) for instance, hasn't even announced it's candidate for prime-minister, in the upcoming elections.Absolutely people hate those on social-assistance who smoke and drink too much and thereby go into the hospitals a lot, hospitals which have long waitinglists. As an example of consumerism, there are close to 1 million people on disability benefits in the Netherlands on a population of 15 million. Again, as I argue, this is because the relationship between those who give and those who receive is too impersonal. You can deny family social structures as a solution to this problem, but then you would have to find another way to make the relationship between givers and receivers more personal, since otherwise the relationship will rot by greed and lazyness, and the whole social system will rot with it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Having dismissed and belittled people's personal capacity for acting social financially, you are left with the central powerstructure to act socially. That is where the tendency for totalitairianism comes in with Socialism, through the centralization.When you talk about "functional weaknesses" in the social program, then that shows me you just don't get it. There isn't going to be any system that is functionally perfect, all social systems are based on a human emotional effort to keep the relationship between giver and receiver healthy. To build in an endless amount of laws into a social system, which in the end all have the violent force of the courts behind them, would make that emotional effort harder, not easier.I don't believe Carter is right in saying that the UN would declare an election invalid, which turned on a couple of thousand, if not hundreds of apparently corrupt votes, on a total of 75 million votes or something. I find it highly unlikely that the elections in a country such as India would then be ruled valid, or most any 3rd world country, since corruption is rife there.The social-democrats yes, they haven't announced their candidate for prime-minister yet. When you don't get to chose who takes the top-job, then that is a clear lack of democracy IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You can also use the argument that extended family is too small a pool in reverse. Primary family and individuals saving are too small a pool, therefore social financing should go through extended families. In socialism there are only individuals, citizens of the state that has the big pool, the existence of the primary family is largely ignored, and sometimes even questioned. So really how large is this pool supposed to be for it to be a good pool? Your answer seems to be as large as possible, without considering any human size. Should smaller countries perhaps make arrangements with other countries to create an even larger pool? Aren't you just creating a big risk by putting everything into one pool? So you see, you can discuss these technicalities endlessly, but I think these technicalities are irrellevant. You just have to make a decision whether or not people should be personally socio-economically responsible for each other, or whether that should be impersonal. That is essentially a decision about human nature, how people are able to deal with their greed and lazyness, not about technicalities of a system.The violence of the courts in a family social structure would be similar to that in marriagerelations. It's a lot different to be criminalized by the state, then to be criminalized by your own family. A very large percentage, if not the majority of people in state social programs are criminalized for not absolutely obeying the stringent and intrusive rules in it. They aren't prosecuted that much, but in theory the state could prosecute them for fraud.In the USA people commonly give money to single-mother families. You won't see such common personal social financing in the Netherlands, or any socialist country I think. There are already many socialist programs in the USA so I think you should compare extended-familyrelations prior to these socialist programs, with present extended-family relations. In effect you argue that social programs have not lessened but actually bettered these relations, because it left extended families free of worry about emergencies. Apparently this supposed benefit to extended-family relations has been swamped by the "cultural drive" towards individualism. How you can argue that people at once are much dependent on moneyworries, and at the same time have a cultural drive that increases moneyworries is beyond me. Isn't it more likely that the drive towards individualism much originates from socialism in it's democratic interpretation, in stead of it being some kind of cultural drive based on what movies?, books? That in the USA as well as Sweden and the Netherlands, extended family relations have increasingly been replaced by socialist programs?Sorry but capitalist systems never belittle people's personal capacity to take care of themselves or each other, that's just nonsense. They many times forget the personal capacity to take care of each other, and focus all on the personal capacity to take care of yourselves, that's true.It is more democratic if the US would have Gore as a president eventhough the majority doesn't now want him, and is happy with Bush? I can't support corruption of votes, eventhough it was apparently just a couple of hundred out of some 75 million, but I'm not so interested to find out the details because majority of people are happy with Bush. Are you really sure UN monitors would invalidate the election of a popular president on the basis of such a few corrupt votes? I find that highly unlikely. The hundred thousand or so votes that you refer to are not corrupt votes.D66 are liberal democrats, PvdA are social democrats, I was talking about the PvdA. You think it's democratic if for instance the Democratic party won the election and after that decided who's going to be the president? After much public pressure it seems the PvdA is going to say who is going to be candidate. Not now, but later *maybe*, if they feel so inclined, they are finally going to announce who their candidate actually is. Democracy is much an afterthought in a coalition system, it is not an obvious selfinterest of parties. Smaller parties manipulating policy through exploiting the parliament majority needed for policy is the political game. It is also very much tribal, where a great many positions get awarded according to political color, not achievement. In the Netherlands it's totally unthinkable that a minister would get appointed who supported a party not in coalition, while in the USA sometimes Democrats get posts in Republican cabinets, just because they're better at the job.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Sorry but you are again mistaken since Wouter Bos is not the candidate for prime minister for the PvdA, he explictly said he won't do it. It *might* be the current mayor of Amsterdam, who in his current job as mayor is supposed to be above partypolitics actually. They *might* announce who it's going to be just when there isn't much of any time at all anymore to take a critical look at the person. I can easily understand your mistake, it's completely bizarre the way they handle democracy.You are likewise mistaken about the democratic content of coaltion government. Coalition government is only really meritable IMO when the population is so divided among themselves that they won't even have much social contact outside of the group they belong to, such as in tribal societies, and some religiously divided societies for instance. That is when it is more oppurtune to let the chiefs decide things among themselves, in stead of having the winner takes all system which would lead to oppression in the societal context.As far as I can tell, you haven't actually made a decision if or not people should personally take care of each other's basic income, or if acting social financially should most all be done more impersonally, through big state social structures.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I guess your position is a no then, you don't think acting social personally should be embedded in law.Would you also like to get rid of the legal responsibilities between husband and wife, and parents and children to take care of each other's basic income?I was actually only interested in discussing whether or not acting social financially should be personal or largely impersonal.Societies with coalition government are typified by a rather high conformism to the group. There are several groups yes, so you have that diversity, but all people within each group tend to be higly conformists. This is not a recipe for individual freedom, or even familyfreedom.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

And now the biggest party is going to decide who to govern with. Will it be leftwing, will it be rightwing? Who knows. They will decide it amongst themselves, paying lipservice to the "will" of the electorate, in largely secret negotiations, which only the despot (the queen) has a right to be informed about. That is the reality of coalitiongovernment.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Any system reform in the Netherlands would be away from coalition government, towards a more US or UK style system, since people are dissatisfied with the democratic content of the coalition system. I think you are just another angry socialist, and your arguments don't have much of any content besides your angry socialism.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu