Going Dutch

[velvetpage]

This very good article describes an American ex-pat's experiences with the Dutch social system. A few points resonated with me in particular, since I live in a socialist system as well:

1) More social safety net does not translate to more laziness or less work for the vast, vast majority of people. On the contrary, it makes people more secure, which means they're able to pursue work they might not be able to afford if they were tied to a health insurance provider (for example.)

2) The roots of socialism in Canada, as in the Netherlands, are deeply religious. They grew out of the Reform Protestant movement to find the most efficient ways to help widows and orphans and anyone else who needed it. The difference is primarily in who we expect will pick up the tab. When times get tough, it gets harder to rely on voluntary charity, because people who lose their jobs tend to stop giving out of necessity. The government has much better resources at its disposal for tiding itself over the lean times. The other difference, of course, is that the non-religious or non-organized religious can buy into a social welfare system where they may not be willing to buy into an overtly religious one.

3) There's a sense of community in Canada, a feeling that if everyone is pulling along fairly well, we're all better for it. The individualism in the States puts a high value on charity being voluntary, theoretically as opposed to the forced charity of taxes. But voluntary charity is charity that can't be counted on to be there when you need it.

It's a good article, especially if your worldview leans towards a strict division between left and right politically.

Comments

[hendrikboom.livejournal.com]

The roots of socialism in Canada, as in the Netherlands, are deeply religious. They grew out of the Reform Protestant movement to find the most efficient ways to help widows and orphans and anyone else who needed it. Also, I think, the Quiet Revolution in Quebec, when the state took over a lot of the functions that had been previously delegated to the churches (and in practice, mostly the Catholic church.).

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Supporters of pure capitalism sometimes point out that people are seldom as rich and successful in a socialist state. The argument is that socialism blunts capitalist drive by punishing success with higher taxes.

However, top bracket taxes in socialist countries are often comparable to the U.S. The limiting factor is that the people on the bottom are not as inclined to be ground into the dust raising up a captain of industry.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

Also, I'd rather have a society where everyone is well-off but there are few multi-billionaires, than a society with lots of the latter but a lower standard of living at the bottom. I do not find that jobs are dependent on the richest people - they tend to spend their excess money on things that don't create jobs at home.

[wyldraven.livejournal.com]

From someone in the States, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[paka.livejournal.com]

About that "strict division; I think it basically builds itself.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, because I know you've met really conservative and religious Canadians who'd be horrified by the idea of ditching social democracy; we Americans are so used to our system that the idea of ditching it and moving to something with nearly no downside - and that only for our wealthier countrymen - is horrifying to us.

I definitely think it's entrenched. I'm not the only American who innately associates the idea of "Christianity as an influence in government" with "screw everyone who isn't at least upper upper middle class." It all makes me wonder; is there a catch, up in Canada (the treatment of First Nations perhaps)? And on the flip side, is there a way we could have religious ideals be a positive influence on government, down here?