Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least
not all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for
parties who advocate welfare cuts.
That supports the assumption. Since the majority of the population is
not (yet, anyway) on welfare, voting for cuts in welfare is voting in
their own self-interest. Thanks for providing me an example.

There's a logical gap somewhere. If you assert the majority are anti-
welfare, then the original assertion that the majority will always
elect the candidates who are pro-welfare can't be true.

No claim was made about welfare in my original post. You injected
welfare into the discussion as a red herring.


I'm speaking in the context of the USA which I believe was the context
of Jay's original post.

I thought it was supposed to be a global rule.

I don't know the intended scope of the rule, but I was applying it
solely to where I live and to where Jay was commenting about in his
original post.


3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without
also rising the taxes
I don't see where this assumption is present,
If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so
no problem.
There will be as you can only raise taxes so far. There is an upper
limit above which you no longer have a democracy and thus the original
argument holds. Once you become communist or socialist than the
original assertion is complete.

How to become a communist country: The communist party makes a coup
d'etat and/or gets "help" by the army of a neighbouring communist
country. Then everyone (believed to be) anti-communist is shot, put in
jail or forced to emigrate, a new order is etablished without bourgeois
tinkerings such as elections and free speech and things.

Raising taxes doesn't quite do the trick.

As soon as the tax rate is 100% and all money flows to the government
and is then redistributed by the government to the populace, then you no
longer have a democracy and thus the original assertion holds. Call the
government what you want, but it isn't a democracy in any sense of the
word I'm familiar with. At that point the government is in total
control and the people are completely subservient to the government.

Maybe democracy has a different meaning where you live.


Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example the
Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly high
taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked for
generations and shows no sign of caving in.
I don't consider the Scandinavian countries to be bastion of a great
economy, but maybe.... I seldom see them on any list of economic
significance.

They are the richest countries in Europe, I think Norway's GDP per
capita is tops of the world, one or two Arab oil sheikdoms excepted.

I'm also not terribly familiar with their governmental
systems. Are they true democracies?

Yes. FYI all countries in Europe are true democracies, except the
Vatican and a couple of Eastern European countries where the 1990
revolutions semi-failed. (They succeeded in most).

That's good, I hope they last. Why don't we here and read about the
contributions of the Scandinavian countries with respect to technology
advances, aid to other countries, etc.?

Matt